Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 106, Issue 3, pp 337–352 | Cite as

The Influence of Media Cue Multiplicity on Deceivers and Those Who Are Deceived

  • David Jingjun Xu
  • Ronald T. Cenfetelli
  • Karl Aquino


We extend prior research of deceitful behavior by studying the reactions of those who are targets of deception and how a specific attribute of communication media, cue multiplicity, influences such reactions. We report on a laboratory experiment involving dyads asked to engage in a stock share purchase exercise. We find that when a broker is perceived to act deceitfully by the buyer, the buyer reacts with negative affect (anger) which provokes subsequent acts of revenge against the broker. Importantly, we find that media with higher cue multiplicity attenuate buyer anger as well as lessen the propensity for the buyer to seek retaliatory acts of revenge. We further find that moral anger mediates the effect of buyers’ perceived deception on revenge.


Cue multiplicity Deception Moral anger Positive affect Revenge Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) 


  1. Aquino, K., & Becker, T. E. (2005). Lying in negotiations: How individual and situational factors influence the use of neutralization strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). An empirical comparison of alternative conceptualizations of postconsumption reactions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 7, 172–182.Google Scholar
  3. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285–324.Google Scholar
  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy Management Review, 23, 154–161.Google Scholar
  7. Bélanger, F., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2006). Virtual teams and multiple media: Structuring media use to attain strategic goals. Group Decision and Negotiations, 15(4), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Towards a general theory of anger and emotional aggression: Implications of the cognitive-neoassociationistic perspective for the analysis of anger and other emotions. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Perspectives on anger and emotion: Advances in social cognition (pp. 1–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on revenge and forgiveness in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buller, D., & Burgoon, J. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, K., & Chidambaram, L. (1995). Developmental differences between distributed and face-to-face groups in electronically supported meeting environments: An exploratory investigation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlson, J. R., George, J. F., Burgoon, J. K., Adkins, M., & White, C. (2004). Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B., & Newsted, P. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chua, C. E. H., Wareham, J., & Robey, D. (2007). The role of online trading communities in managing internet auction fraud. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 759–781.Google Scholar
  16. Citera, M., Beauregard, R., & Mitsuya, T. (2005). An experimental study of credibility in e-negotiations. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins, M. (1992). Flaming: The relationship between social context cues and uninhibited verbal behavior in computer-mediated communication. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from
  18. Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 245–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dawson, R. (2000). Developing knowledge-based client relationships—the future of professional services. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  21. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.Google Scholar
  22. Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Emarketer. (2009). Online fraud rate stable as losses climb. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from
  25. Estrada, C., Isen, A., & Young, M. (1994). Positive affect improves creative problem-solving and influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18(4), 285–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social-perception. Annual Review Psychology, 44, 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fritzsche, D. J., & Oz, E. (2007). Personal values’ influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Power, G. J. (1987). A social information processing model of media use in organizations. Communication Research, 14(5), 520–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Funches, V., Markley, M., & Davis, L. (2009). Reprisal, retribution and requital: Investigating customer retaliation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work–organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychology Bulletin, 112, 310–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giordano, G. A., Stoner, J. S., Brouer, R. L., & George, J. F. (2007). The influences of deception and computer-mediation on self-report measures of forcing negotiating, tension, satisfaction, and deception detection in dyadic negotiations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 362–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grazioli, S., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2003). Consumer and business deception on the Internet: Content analysis of documentary evidence. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(4), 93–118.Google Scholar
  34. Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. (2006). The effects of relationship quality on customer retaliation. Marketing Letters, 17(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 36(2), 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haring, B. (1979). Free and faithful in Christ: Moral theology for priests and laity. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hughes, P. M. (1995). Moral anger, forgiving, and condoning. Journal of Social Philosophy, 26, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behaviour. Academy Management Journal, 49, 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Quarterly, 14(3), 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, N. A., & Copper, R. B. (2009). Media, affect, concession, and agreement in negotiation: IM versus telephone. Decision Support Systems, 46, 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, P. E., Grazioli, S., & Jamal, K. (1993). Fraud detection: Intentionality and deception in cognition. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(5), 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson, P. E., Grazioli, S., Jamal, K., & Berryman, R. G. (2001). Detecting deception: Adversarial problem solving in a low base-rate world. Cognitive Science, 25(3), 355–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 263–299.Google Scholar
  44. Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15(3), 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kraut, R. E., Galegher, J., Fish, R., & Chalfonte, B. (1992). Task requirements and media choice in collaborative writing. Human–Computer Interaction, 7(4), 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laros, F. J. M., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: A hierarchical approach? Journal of Business Research, 58, 1437–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis, C. C., & George, J. F. (2008). Cross-cultural deception in social networking sites and face-to-face communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2945–2964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lim, K. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). The effect of multimedia on the perception of ambiguity and the usefulness of information. MIS Quarterly, 24(3), 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lim, K. H., Benbasat, I., & Ward, L. M. (2000). The role of multimedia on changing first impression bias. Information Systems Research, 11(2), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Locke, E. A., & Woiceshyn, J. (1995). Why businessmen should be honest: The argument from rational egoism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Loewenstein, J., Morris, M., Chakravarti, A., Thompson, L., & Kopelman, S. (2005). At a loss for words: Dominating the conversation and the outcome in negotiation as a function of intricate arguments and communication media. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Latent variables path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychology Bulletin, 131, 803–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moores, T. T., & Chang, J. C. J. (2006). Ethical decision making in software piracy: Initial development and test of a four-component model. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 167–180.Google Scholar
  56. Nezlek, J. B., Feist, G. J., Wilson, F. C., & Plesko, R. M. (2001). Day-to-day variability in empathy as a function of daily events and mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Noteberg, A., Benford, T. L., & Hunton, J. E. (2003). Matching electronic communication media and audit tasks. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 4, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nyer, P. (1997). Modeling the cognitive antecedents of post-consumption emotions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 10, 80–90.Google Scholar
  59. Rabl, T., & Kuhlmann, T. M. (2008). Understanding corruption in organizations—development and empirical assessment of an action model. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart PLS. Hamburg: University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  62. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological source. Administration Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rockmann, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2008). To be or not to be trusted: The influence of media richness on defection and deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 106–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panoptic? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Academy Management Journal, 41, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels—a causal-analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Venard, B., & Hanafi, M. (2008). Organizational isomorphism and corruption in financial institutions: Empirical research in emerging countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents to interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 952–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vitell, S. J., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Ammeter, A. P., Garner, B. L., & Novicevic, M. M. (2009). Religiosity and moral identity: The mediating role of self-control. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vitell, S. J., & Hidalgo, E. R. (2006). The impact of corporate ethical values and enforcement of ethical codes on the perceived importance of ethics in business: A comparison of U.S. and Spanish managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Bélanger, F. (2007). Communication media repertoires: Dealing with the multiplicity of media choices. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 267–293.Google Scholar
  77. Webster, J., & Trevino, L. K. (1995). Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: Two policy-capturing studies. Academy Management Journal, 38, 1544–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.Google Scholar
  79. Wellens, A. R. (1986). Use of a psychological distancing model to assess differences in telecommunication media. In L. Parker & C. Olgen (Eds.), Teleconferencing and electronic media (Vol. 5, pp. 347–361). Madison, WI: Center for Interactive Programs.Google Scholar
  80. Wellens, A. R. (1989). Effects of telecommunication media upon information sharing and team performance: Some theoretical and empirical observations. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 4, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communications: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wold, H. (1985). System analysis by partial least square. In P. Nijkamp, H. Leitner, & N. Wrigley (Eds.), Measuring the immeasurable (pp. 221–252). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  83. Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Twitchell, D. P., Qin, T. T., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2004). A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 139–165.Google Scholar
  84. Zhou, L., & Zhang, D. (2006). A comparison of deception behavior in dyad and triadic group decision making in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 37(2), 140–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Jingjun Xu
    • 1
  • Ronald T. Cenfetelli
    • 2
  • Karl Aquino
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Finance, Real Estate, & Decision Sciences, W. Frank Barton School of BusinessWichita State UniversityWichitaUSA
  2. 2.Management Information Systems, Sauder School of BusinessThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources Division, Sauder School of BusinessThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations