Testing Interpersonal Deception Theory: The Language of Interpersonal Deception

Abstract

Pages: 268-289An analysis of verbal behavior was undertaken to test principles of interpersonal deception theory (IDT). I t was predicted that language choice in deceptive messages would reflect strategic attempts to manage information through nonimmediate language. This linguistic profile, though, was expected to be altered in response to preinteractional factors -relational and behavioral familiarity-and interactional factors -form of deception and receiver suspicion. Results from two investigations are reported: a secondary analysis on interactions in an earlier study (Burgoon, Buller, Dillman, & Walther, 1995) and analysis of a primary experiment employing a 2 (relationship) x 2 (receiver expertise) x 2 (receiver suspicion) x 2 (truth/deception) within-subjects factorial design. As expected, senders displayed greater verbal nonimmediacy when deceiving. Expertise had a greater effect on linguistic behavior than a prior relationship with the receiver, with senders using more verbal nonimmediacy with novice receivers. Senders were more verbally nonimmediate when equivocating. Suspicion produced a mixed pattern of linguistic cues. The possibility that changes produced by preinteraction and interactional factors were strategic attempts to bolster credibility is discussed.

Deception and its Detection Under Synchronous and Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication

“…An alternative possibility is that synchronous CMC fosters a truth bias-a tendency to overestimate truthfulness in another's communication (McCornack and Parks 1986)-born out of the sense of involvement and feelings of connection, camaraderie, and similarity that are engendered. Deceivers may capitalize on the truth bias and perceived team solidarity to portray themselves as credible, to garner trust, to make it more difficult for their team members to detect faulty information, to persuade naïve team members to accept bad arguments and evidence, and hence, to undermine decision-making (Buller et al 1996;Burgoon et al 2002a).…”

“…Yet there are many circumstances in which group members may intentionally give misleading, faulty, and invalid information if they have hidden agendas, have vested interests that differ from the group, or want to hide the fact that they lack knowledge on certain topics. Research has indicated that as much as one-third of daily conversations include deception in the forms of concealment, ambiguity, exaggeration, and outright lies (Buller et al 1996;Ekman 1996). Deception, then, is one of the threats to successful computer-mediated collaborative work.…”

“…Credibility is a multidimensional construct that refers to social judgments regarding another's ethos or believability (Buller et al 1996;McCroskey et al 1974). Among the dimensions that have been associated with it are judgments related to character or trust, expertise or competence, sociability or likability, composure, extroversion or dominance, and persuasiveness.…”

Deception detection under varying electronic media and warning conditions

“…According to the concept of leakage developed by Ekman [17], deceivers often betray their duplicity by "leaking" behavioral indicators during the course of conversation, and should the receiver acknowledge these clues to deception, he or she stands a much better chance at uncovering lies. With the act of lying considered to be a more difficult task than telling the truth [4], deceivers often maintain their message at the expense of ignoring their behavior. Cues, like increased voice pitch, gaze aversion, or self-grooming behavior, are "leaked" out, and they may or may not be noticed by the receiver (see metaanalyses by Zuckerman and Driver and by DePaulo and colleagues [16,35] for reviews of reliable cues).…”

Potential noncontact tools for rapid credibility assessment from physiological and behavioral cues

“…Empirical evidence suggests that deceivers may use language differently than truth-tellers [22][23][24]. Deceivers may have shorter talk time, share fewer details, and display elevated uncertainty [1].…”