Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 89–115 | Cite as

Barriers to Deceiving Other Group Members in Virtual Settings

  • Kent Marett
  • Joey F. George


The purpose of this study was to explore the incidence and potential influence of deceptive communication on the decisions made by groups using computer-mediated communication. Two dependent variables were of specific interest—the amount of deception submitted during group decision-making and the success of deceivers in influencing the final decision. Results showed that deceivers lie more in CMC-supported groups, but were only significantly more successful in swaying the allocation decision when group members were collocated. Overall, group members were abysmally poor at detecting the lies that were submitted. The results of the study are discussed and implications for future research and practice are offered.


Group decision-making Group support systems Deception Virtual teams Proximity Social presence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aiken M, Waller B (2000) Flaming among first-time group support system users. Inform Manage 37: 95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport GW, Vernon P, Lindzey G (1951) A Study of Values. Riverside Publishing, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Aquino K (1998) The effects of ethical climate and the availability of alternatives on the use of deception during negotiation. Int J Conflict Manage 9(3): 195–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biros D, George J, Zmud R (2002) Inducing sensitivity to deception in order to improve decision making performance: a field study. MIS Q 26(2): 119–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buller D, Burgoon J (1996) Interpersonal deception theory. Commun Theory 6: 203–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buller D, Strzyzewski K, Comstock J (1991) Interpersonal deception: I. Deceivers’ reactions to receivers’ suspicions and probing. Commun Monogr 58: 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buller D, Stiff J, Burgoon J (1996) Behavioral adaptation in deceptive transactions. Human Commun Res 22(4): 589–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgoon J (2005) The future of motivated deception. In: Kalbfleisch P. (ed.) Communication Yearbook 29. Erlbaum, Mahway, NJ, pp 49–95Google Scholar
  9. Burgoon J, Buller D, Dillman L, Walther J (1995) Interpersonal deception: IV. Effects of suspicion on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Human Commun Res 22(2): 163–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgoon J, Bonito J, Bengtsson B, Ramirez A, Dunbar N, Miczo N (2000) Testing the interactivity model: communication processes, partner assessments, and the quality of collaborative work. J Manage Inform Syst 16(3): 33–56Google Scholar
  11. Burgoon J, Buller D, Floyd K (2001) Does participation affect deception success? A test of the interactivity principle. Human Commun Res 27(4): 503–534Google Scholar
  12. Burgoon J, Bonito J, Ramirez A, Dunbar N, Kam K, Fischer J (2002a) Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. J Commun 52(3): 657–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgoon J, Burgoon M, Broneck K, Alvaro E, Nunamaker J (2002b) Effects of synchronicity and proximity on group communication. National Communication Association, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  14. Burgoon J, Chen F, Twitchell D (2010) Deception and its detection under synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decis Negot 19(4): 345–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burke K, Chidambaram L (1999) How much bandwidth is enough? A longitudinal examination of media characteristics and group outcomes. MIS Q 23(4): 557–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlson J, George J (2004) Media appropriateness in the conduct and discovery of deceptive communication: the relative influence of richness and synchronicity. Group Decis Negot 13(2): 191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlson J, Zmud R (1999) Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Acad Manage Rev 42(2): 153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlson J, George J, Burgoon J, Adkins M, White C (2004) Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decis Negot 13(1): 5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chidambaram L, Jones B (1993) Impact of communication medium and computer support on group perceptions and performance: a comparison of face-to-face and dispersed meetings. MIS Q 17: 465–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chidambaram L, Tung LL (2005) Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Inform Syst Res 16(2): 149–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Connolly T, Jessup L, Valacich J (1990) Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Manage Sci 36(6): 689–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dennis A, Garfield M (2003) The adoption and use of GSS in project teams: toward more participative processes and outcomes. MIS Q 27(2): 289–323Google Scholar
  23. Dennis A, Valacich J, Speier C, Morris M (1998) Beyond media richness: an empirical test of media synchronicity theory. In: Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Kohala, HIGoogle Scholar
  24. DePaulo B, Kirkendol S (1989) The motivation impairment effect in the communication of deception. In: Yuille J (ed.) Credibility assessment. Klewer, Duerne, Belgium, pp 51–70Google Scholar
  25. DePaulo B, Kirkendol S, Tang J, O’Brien T (1988) The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: replications and extensions. J Nonverb Behav 12(3): 177–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DePaulo B, Lindsay J, Malone B, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129(1): 74–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ekman P (1992) Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage, vol 2. WW Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Er MC, Ng AC (1995) The anonymity and proximity factors in group decision support systems. Decis Support Syst 14: 75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fjermestad J, Hiltz SR (1999) An assessment of group support systems experimental research: methodology and results. J Manage Inform Syst 15(3): 7–149Google Scholar
  30. Fleming P, Zyglidopoulos S (2008) The escalation of deception in organizations. J Bus Ethics 81(4): 837–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forgas J, East R (2008) On being happy and gullible: mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. J Exp Soc Psychol 44(5): 1362–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gallupe B, Dennis A, Cooper W, Valacich J, Nunamaker J, Bastianutti L (1992) Electronic brainstorming and group size. Acad Manage J 35: 350–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. George J, Marett K (2005) Deception: the dark side of e-collaboration. Int J e-Collab 1(4): 24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. George J, Marett K, Tilley P (2008) The effects of warnings, computer-based media, and probing activity on successful lie detection. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 51(1): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Handy C (1995) Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Bus Rev 73(3): 40Google Scholar
  36. Hayne S, Pollard C, Rice R (2003) Identification of comment authorship in anonymous group support systems. J Manage Inform Syst 20(1): 301–329Google Scholar
  37. Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci 10(6): 791–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jessup L, Tansik D (1991) Decision making in an automated environment: the effects of anonymity and proximity with a group decision support system. Decis Sci 22: 266–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Joinson A, Dietz-Uhler B (2002) Explanations for the perpretation of and reactions to deception in a virtual community. Soc Sci Comput Rev 20(3): 275–289Google Scholar
  40. Kahai S, Avolio B, Sosik J (1998) Effects of source and participant anonymity and difference of initial opinions in an EMS context. Decis Sci 29(2): 427–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kahai S, Cooper R (2003) Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: the impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. J Manage Inform Syst 20(1): 263–300Google Scholar
  42. Keating C, Heltman K (1994) Dominance and deception in children and adults: are leaders the best misleaders?. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 20(3): 312–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keyton J (1999) Analyzing interaction patterns in dysfunctional teams. Small Group Res 30(4): 491–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kiesler S, Sproull L (1992) Group decision making and communication technology. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 52: 96–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire T (1984) Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am Psychol 39(10): 1123–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kling R (1991) Cooperation, coordination, and control in computer-supported work. Commun ACM 34(12): 83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kruempel K (2000) Making the right (interactive) moves for knowledge-producing in computer-mediated groups. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 43(2): 185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leary M (1996) Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  49. Levine T, Park HS, McCornack S (1999) Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: documenting the ’veracity effect’. Commun Monogr 66: 125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lyytinen K, Maaranen P, Knuuttila J (1994) Groups are not always the same: an analysis of group behaviors in electronic meeting systems. Comput Support Cooper Work 2(2): 261–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maier N, Thurber J (1968) Accuracy of judgments of deception when an interview is watched, heard, and read. Person Psychol 21: 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marett K, George J (2004) Deception in the case of one sender and multiple receivers. Group Decis Negot 13: 29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Markus L (1994) Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organ Sci 5(4): 502–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maznevski M, Chudoba K (2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ Sci 11(5): 473–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McLeod P, Baron R, Marti M, Yoon K (1997) The eyes have it: minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. J Appl Psychol 82(5): 706–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller G, Stiff J (1993) Deceptive communication. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  57. Nunamaker J, Dennis A, Valacich J, Vogel D, George J (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Commun ACM 34(7): 40–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Hair D, Cody M (1994) Deception. In: Cupach WR, Spitzberg BH (eds) The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 181–213Google Scholar
  59. Paul S, Samarah I, Seetharaman P, Mykytyn P (2004) An empirical investigation of collaborative conflict management style in group support system-based global virtual teams. J Manage Inform Syst 21(3): 185–222Google Scholar
  60. Phillips S, Eisenberg E (1993) Strategic uses of electronic mail in organizations. Electron J Commun 3(2)Google Scholar
  61. Piccoli G, Ives B (2003) Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams. Mis Q 27(3): 365–395Google Scholar
  62. Postmes T, Spears R, Lea M (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Commun Res 25(6): 689–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rao S, Lim J (2000) The impact of involuntary cues on media effects. In: 33rd Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  64. Roberts T, Lowry PB, Sweeney P (2006) An evaluation of the impact of social presence through group size and the use of collaborative osftware on group member “voice” in face-to-face and computer-mediated task groups. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 49(1): 28–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Robert L, Dennis A, Hung YC (2009) Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. J Manage Inform Syst 26(2): 241–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rockmann K, Northcraft G (2008) To be or not to be trusted: the influence of media richness on defection and deception. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 107(2): 106–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schweitzer M, Brodt S, Croson R (2002) Seeing and believing: visual access and the strategic use of deception. Int J Conflict Manage 13(3): 258–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scott C (1999) The impact of physical and discursive anonymity on group members’ multiple identifications during computer-supported decision making. Western J Commun 63(4): 456–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. John Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  70. Shulman D (2011) Deception in the workplace: recent research and promising new directions. Sociol Compass 5(1): 52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Siegel J, Dubrovsky V, Kiesler S, McGuire T (1986) Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 37: 157–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spears R, Lea M (1994) Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Commun Res 21(4): 427–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sproull L, Kiesler S (1986) Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manage Sci 32(11): 1492–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stiff J, Kim H, Ramesh C (1992) Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception. Commun Res 19(3): 326–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sussman S, Sproull L (1999) Straight talk: delivering bad news through electronic communication. Inform Syst Res 10(2): 150–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tesser A, Moore J (1986) On the convergence of public and private aspects of self. In: Baumeister R (ed.) Public self and private self. Springer-Verlag, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  77. Tung L, Turban E (1998) A proposed research framework for distributed group support systems. Decis Support Syst 23: 175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Valacich J, George J, Nunamaker J, Vogel D (1994) Physical proximity effects on computer-mediated group idea generation. Small Group Res 25(1): 83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Valacich J, Paranka D, George J, Nunamaker J (1993) Communication concurrency and the new media. Commun Res 20(2): 249–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vrij A (2000) Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  81. Vrij A, Edward K, Roberts K, Bull R (2000) Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. J Nonverb Behav 24(4): 239–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walther J, Burgoon J (1992) Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Commun Res 19: 50–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Watson R, DeSanctis G, Poole MS (1988) Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Q 12(3): 463–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wilson JM, Straus SG, McEvily B (2006) All in due time: the development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 99(1): 16–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zhou L (2005) An empirical investigation of deception behavior in instant messaging. IEEE Trans Profess Commun 48(2): 147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhou L, Burgoon J, Twitchell D, Qin T, Nunamaker J (2004) A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication. J Manage Inform Syst 20(4): 139–165Google Scholar
  87. Zmud R (1990) Opportunities for strategic information manipulation through new information technology. In: Fulk J, Steinfeld C (eds) Organizations and Communication Technology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp 95–116Google Scholar
  88. Zuckerman M, Driver R (1985) Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In: Siegman AW, Feldstein S (eds) Nonverbal Communication: An Integrated Perspective. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 129–147Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and Information Systems, College of BusinessMississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management Information Systems, College of BusinessIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations