Deception, Detection, Demeanor, and Truth Bias in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication

Communication Research

Volumn 42, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 1116-1142

  Van Swol, Lyn M ^a   Braun, Michael T ^a   Kolb, Miranda R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

computer mediated communication (CMC); deception; lies; omission; suspicion; truth bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 84946410783     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650213485785     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. C.F.BondB.M.DePaulo (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
2. D.B.BullerJ.K.Burgoon (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
3. J.K.BurgoonT.R.Levine (2009). Advances in deception detection. In S.SmithS.Wilson (Eds.), New Directions in Interpersonal Communication (pp. 201-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. J.K.BurgoonG.M.StonerJ.A.BonitoN.E.Dunbar (2003). Trust and deception in mediated communication. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikolua, HI.
5. J.R.CarlsonJ.F.GeorgeJ.K.BurgoonM.AdkinsC.H.White (2004). Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 5-28. doi:10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011942.31158.d8
6. A.CaspiP.Gorsky (2006). Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion. Cyperpsychology and Behavior, 9, 54-59. doi:10.1089/cpb.20069.54
7. B.M.DePauloD.A.KashyS.E.KirkendolM.M.WyerJ.A.Epstein (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979-995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979
8. P.DeScioliJ.ChristnerR.Kurzban (2011). The omission strategy. Psychological Science, 22, 442-446. doi:10.1177/0956797611400616
9. N.D.DuranC.HallP.M.McCarthyD.S.McNamara (2010). The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 439-462. doi:10.1017/S0142716410000068
10. P.EkmanW.V.Friesen (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88-106.
11. J.F.GeorgeJ.R.Carlson (2004). Media appropriateness in the conduct and discovery of deceptive communication: The relative influence of richness and synchronicity. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 191-210. doi:10.1023/B:GRUP.0000021841.01346.35
12. J.F.GeorgeJ.R.Carlson (2005). Media selection for deceptive communication. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikolua, HI.
13. J.F.GeorgeJ.R.Carlson (2010). Lying at work: A deceiver’s view of media characteristics. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27, Article 44. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol27/iss1/44
14. J.F.GeorgeA.Robb (2008). Deception and computer-mediated communication in daily life. Communication Reports, 21, 92-103. doi:10.1080/08934210802298108
15. P.Grice (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. J.T.HancockL.CurryS.GoorhaM.T.Woodworth (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception. Discourse Processes, 45, 1-23. doi:10.1080/01638530701739181
17. J.T.HancockJ.Thom-SantelliT.Ritchie (2004a). Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior. CHI Letters, 6(1), 129-134. doi:10.1145/985692.985709
18. J.T.HancockJ.Thom-SantelliT.Ritchie (2004b). What lies beneath: The effect of communication medium on deception production. Annual Meeting for the Society for Text and Discourse, Chicago, IL.
19. J.T.HancockM.T.WoodworthS.Goorha (2010). See no evil: The effect of communication medium and motivation on deception detection. Group Decision & Negotiation, 19, 327-343. doi:10.1007/s10726-009-9169-7
20. A.Huck (1999). Responder behavior in ultimatum games with incomplete information. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 183-206. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00004-5
21. S.JacobsE.J.DawsonD.Brashers (1996). Information manipulation theory: A replication and assessment. Communication Monographs, 63, 70-82. doi:10.1080/03637759609376375
22. T.R.Levine (2010). A few transparent liars. Communication Yearbook, 34, 40-61.
23. T.R.LevineK.J.AsadaL.L.Massi (2003). The relative impact of violation type and lie severity on judgments of message deceptiveness. Communication Research Reports, 20, 208-218. doi:10.1080/08824090309388819
24. T.R.LevineR.K.KimH.S.ParkM.Hughes (2006). Deception detection accuracy is a predictable linear function of message veracity base-rate: A formal test of Park and Levine’s probability model. Communication Monographs, 73, 243-260. doi:10.1080/03637750600873736
25. T.R.LevineH.S.ParkS.A.McCornack (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.”Communication Monographs, 66, 125-144. doi:10.1080/03637759909376468
26. T.R.LevineK.B.SerotaH.ShulmanD.D.ClareH.S.ParkA.S.ShawJ.H.Lee (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377-403. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01407.x
27. T.R.LevineA.ShawH.Shulman (2010). Increasing deception detection accuracy with strategic direct questioning. Human Communication Research, 36, 216-231. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01374.x
28. L.K.MarettJ.F.George (2004). Deception in the case of one send and multiple receivers. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 29-44.
29. N.MazarD.Ariely (2006). Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25, 1-21. doi:10.1509/jppm.25.1.117
30. S.A.McCornack (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 1-16. doi:10.1080/03637759209376245
31. S.A.McCornackT.R.LevineK.A.SolowczukH.I.TorresD.M.Campbell (1992). When the alteration of information is viewed as deception: An empirical test of information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 17-29. doi:10.1080/03637759209376246
32. S.A.McCornackM.R.Parks (1986). Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. In M.L.McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 9 (pp. 377-389). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
33. G.R.MillerP.A.MongeauC.Sleight (1986). Fudging with friends and lying to lovers: Deceptive communication in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 495-512. doi:10.1177/0265407586034006
34. M.O’SullivanP.EkmanW.V.Friesen (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(3, Pt. 1), 203-215. doi:10.1007/BF00987488
35. H.S.ParkT.R.Levine (2001). A probability model of accuracy in deception detection experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201-210. doi:10.1080/03637750128059
36. I.RitovJ.Baron (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 263-277. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960030404
37. N.Selwyn (2008). A safe haven for misbehaving? An investigation of online misbehavior among university students. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 446-465. doi:10.1177/0894439307313515
38. K.B.SerotaT.R.LevineF.J.Boster (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies in self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36, 2-25. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.x
39. M.SprancaE.MinskJ.Baron (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 76-105. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(91)90011-T
40. P.StraubJ.K.Murnighan (1995). An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: Information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offer. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27, 345-364. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(94)00072-M
41. A.E.TenbrunselD.M.Messick (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17, 223-236. doi:10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53
42. A.ValenzuelaJ.Srivastava (2012). Role of information asymmetry and situational salience in reducing intergroup bias: The case of ultimatum games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1671-1683. doi:10.1177/0146167212458327
43. L.M.Van SwolD.MalhotraM.T.Braun. (2012). Deception and its detection: Effects of monetary incentives and personal relationship history. Communication Research, 39, 217-238. doi:10.1177/0093650210396868
44. J.B.Walther (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
45. D.WatsonL.A.ClarkA.Tellegen (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
46. M.T.Whitty (2002). Liar, liar! An examination of how open, supportive and honest people are in chat rooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 343-352. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00059-0
47. M.T.WhittyS.E.Carville (2008). Would I lie to you? Self-serving lies and other oriented lies told across different media. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1021-1031. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.03.004
48. L.N.T.YeungT.R.LevineK.Nishiyama (1999). Information manipulation theory and perceptions of deception in Hong Kong. Communication Reports, 12, 1-11. doi:10.1080/08934219909367703
49. L.ZhouJ.K.BurgoonJ.F.NunamakerJr.D.Twitchell (2004). Automating linguistic-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81-106.
50. M.ZuckermanR.S.DeFrankJ.A.HallD.T.LarranceR.Rosenthal (1979). Facial and vocal cues of deception and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 378-396. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(79)90045-3
51. M.ZuckermanB.M.DePauloR.Rosenthal (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-59). New York, NY: Academic Press.