Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

See No Evil: The Effect of Communication Medium and Motivation on Deception Detection

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study reports an experiment that examines the role of communication medium and liar motivation on deception detection. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two dyadic communication conditions, text-based, computer-mediated environment or face-to-face, and to one of two motivation conditions, high or low. Participants engaged in a discussion of four topics, in which one participant was deceptive during two topics and truthful during the other two. No main effect of communication medium or motivation level was observed. However, an interaction effect suggests that highly motivated liars interacting in a text-based, computer- mediated environment were the most successful in deceiving their partners. The implications of these results are discussed both in terms of the elimination of non- verbal cues, as well as the potential advantages to the motivated liar offered by text-based media.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson DE, DePaulo BM, Ansfield ME, Tickle JJ, Green E (1999) Beliefs about cues to deception: mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom. J Nonverbal Behav 23: 67–89. doi:10.1023/A:1021387326192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DE, DePaulo BM, Ansfield ME (2002) The development of deception detection skill: a longitudinal study of same sex friends. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28: 536–545. doi:10.1177/0146167202287010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos N, Olson J, Gergle D, Olson G, Wright Z (2002) Effect of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. In: Proceedings of CHI 2002, pp 135–140

  • Buller DB, Burgoon JK (1996) Interpersonal deception theory. Commun Theory 3: 203–242. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK, Floyd K (2000) Testing the motivational impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interactions. West J Commun 64: 243–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK, Buller DB, Guerrero LK, Feldman CM (1994) Interpersonal deception: VI. Viewing deception success from deceiver and observer perspectives: effects of preinteractional and interactional factors. Commun Stud 45: 263–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK, Buller DB, White CH, Afifi W, Buslig ALS (1999) The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25: 669–686. doi:10.1177/0146167299025006003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK, Buller DB, Floyd K (2001) Does participation affect deception success? A test of the interactivity principle. Hum Commun Res 27: 503–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK, Bonito JA, Ramirez A, Dunbar NE, Kam K, Fischer J (2002) Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. J Commun 52(3): 657–677. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02567.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK, Stoner GM, Bonito JA, Dunbar NE (2003) Trust and deception in mediated communication. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, USA

  • Carlson JR, George JF, Burgoon JK, Adkins M, White C (2004) Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decis Negot 13: 5–28. doi:10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011942.31158.d8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis M, Hadiks D (1995) Demeanor and credibility. Semiotica 106: 5–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis A, Valacich JS (1999) Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, USA

  • DePaulo BM, Kirkendol SE (1989) The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In: Yuille JC (eds) Credibility assessment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 51–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Depaulo BM, Morris WL (2004) Discerning lies from truths: behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In: Granhag PA, Stromwall LA (eds) The Detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, pp 15–40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo BM, Rosenthal R (1979) Telling lies. J Pers Soc Psychol 37: 1713–1722. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo BM, Lanier K, Davis T (1983) Detecting the deceit of the motivated Liar. J Pers Soc Psychol 45: 1096–1103. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo BM, Kirkendol SE, Tang J, O’Brien TP (1988) The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: replications and extensions. J Nonverbal Behav 12: 177–202. doi:10.1007/BF00987487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo BM, Charlton K, Cooper H, Lindsay JJ, Muhlenbruck L (1997) The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1: 346–357. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129: 74–118. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar NE, Ramirez A, Burgoon JK (2003) The effects of participation on the ability to judge deceit. Commun Rep 16: 23–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P (2001) Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P, Friesen WV (1969) Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 32: 88–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P, O’Sullivan M, Friesen WV, Scherer KR (1991) Face, voice, and body in detecting deceit. J Nonverbal Behav 15: 125–135. doi:10.1007/BF00998267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest JA, Feldman RS (2000) Detecting deception and judge’s involvement: lower task involvement leads to better lie detection. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26: 118–125. doi:10.1177/0146167200261011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank MG, Ekman P (1997) The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high stakes lies. J Pers Soc Psychol 72: 1429–1439. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granhag PA, Stromwall LA (2004) Research on deception detection: intersections and future challenges. In: Granhag PA, Stromwall LA (eds) The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, pp 15–40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grice HP (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock JT, Dunham PJ (2001) Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited: an analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Commun Res 28: 325–347. doi:10.1177/009365001028003004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock JT, Dunham PJ (2001) Language use in computer-mediated communication: the role of coordination devices. Discourse Process 31: 91–110. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp3101_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock JT, Thom-Santelli J, Ritchie T (2004) Deception and design: the impact of communication technologies on lying behavior. Proceedings, Conference on Computer Human Interaction, vol 6. ACM, New York, pp 130–136

  • Internet Fraud Complaint Center (2003) IFCC 2002 internet fraud report. Retrieved March 17, 2004, from http://www.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/2002_IFCCReport.pdf

  • Jones SE, LeBaron CD (2002) Research on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication: emerging integrations. J Commun 52: 499–521. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02559.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine TR, Park HS, McCornack SA (1999) Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: documenting the “veracity effect”. Commun Monogr 66: 663–675

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Wolak J (2001) Risk factors & impact of online solicitation of youth. JAMA 285: 3011–3014. doi:10.1001/jama.285.23.3011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter S, Woodworth M, Birt A (2000) Truth, lies and videotape: an investigation of the ability of Federal parole officers to detect deception. Law Hum Behav 24: 643–658. doi:10.1023/A:1005500219657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2000) Detecting lies and deceit. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2004) Guidelines to catch a liar. In: Granhag P, Stromwall LA (eds) The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, pp 287–314

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2005) Criteria-based content analysis: a qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychol Public Policy Law 11: 3–41. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A, Semin GR, Bull R (1996) Insight into behavior displayed during deception. Hum Commun Res 22: 544–562. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00378.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A, Edward K, Roberts KP, Bull R (2000) Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. J Nonverbal Behav 24: 239–264. doi:10.1023/A:1006610329284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther JB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun Res 28: 105–134. doi:10.1177/009365001028001004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther JB, Anderson JF, Park D (1994) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Commun Res 21: 460–487. doi:10.1177/009365094021004002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng J, Veinott E, Bos N, Olson J, Olson G (2002) Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities. In: Proceedings, Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, vol 4, pp 141–146

  • Zuckerman M, Driver RE (1985) Telling lies: verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In: Siegman AW, Feldstein S (eds) Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 129–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman M, DePaulo BM, Rosenthal R (1981) Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In: Berkowitz L (eds) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp 2–59

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication and Faculty of Computing and Information Science, Cornell University, 320 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Jeffrey T. Hancock & Saurabh Goorha

  2. University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, Canada

    Michael T. Woodworth

Authors
  1. Jeffrey T. Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael T. Woodworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saurabh Goorha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey T. Hancock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hancock, J.T., Woodworth, M.T. & Goorha, S. See No Evil: The Effect of Communication Medium and Motivation on Deception Detection. Group Decis Negot 19, 327–343 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9169-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9169-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation