Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 345–366 | Cite as

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

  • Judee K. Burgoon
  • Fang Chen
  • Douglas P. Twitchell


As part of an ongoing research program investigating features of computer-mediated communication (CMC) that affect deception and its detection, an experiment was conducted to test the impact of synchronicity on communication processes, credibility assessments, deception detection, and team performance. At issue is whether various forms of CMC enable or deter successful deception. Synchronous (real-time) CMC was hypothesized to foster more involvement and mutuality during communication, more credibility for team members, and hence less detection of deception when it was present. Team performance was hypothesized to suffer under deception due to deceivers capitalizing on synchronous communication to build their credibility. Two-person teams conducted a decision-making task in real time (synchronous) or over the course of several days (asynchronous). In half of the pairs, one party was asked to be deceptive. The results indicated that participants in the synchronous mode were more involved, perceived more mutuality, and viewed their partners in a more favorable light, than participants in the asynchronous mode. Deceivers portrayed themselves as somewhat more credible than truthtellers. However, they were not perceived as more persuasive than truth-tellers. Participants in the deceptive condition made poorer decisions than participants in the truthful condition. Implications for CMC and future study are discussed.


Synchronicity Deception Interpersonal communication Computer mediated communication Distributed team work Communication process Communication outcome 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Buller DB, Burgoon JK, Buslig A, Roiger J (1996) Testing interpersonal deception theory: the language of interpersonal deception. Commun Theory 6: 268–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00129.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burgoon JK (1976) The ideal source: A reexamination of source credibility measurement. Cent States Speech J 27: 200–206Google Scholar
  3. Burgoon JK, Bonito JAA, Ramirez J, 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: 657–677. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02567.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgoon JK, Johnson ML, Koch PT (1998) The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Commun Monogr 65: 309–335Google Scholar
  5. Burgoon JK, Bonito JA, Bengtsson B, Ramirez A Jr, Dunbar NE, Miczo N (1999–2000) Testing the interactivity model: communication processes, partner assessment, and the quality of collaborative work. J Manage Inf Syst 16:35–58Google Scholar
  6. Burgoon JK, Bonito JA, Kam K (2002) Communication and trust under face-to-face and mediated conditions: implications for leading from a distance. In: Weisband S, Atwater L (eds) Leadership at a distance. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgoon JK, Burgoon M, Broneck K, Alvaro E, Nunamaker JF Jr (2002) Effects of synchronicity and proximity on group communication. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the national communication association. New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgoon JK, Le Poire BA (1999) Nonverbal cues and interpersonal judgments: participant and observer perceptions of intimacy, dominance, composure, and formality. Commun Monogr 66: 105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgoon JK, Stoner GM, Bonito JA, Dunbar NE (2003). Trust and deception in mediated communication. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Big Island, HI. Los Alamitas: IEEEGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahn DD, Shulman GM (1984) The perceived understanding instrument. Commun Res Rep 1: 122–125Google Scholar
  11. Dennis AR, Valacich JS (1999). Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Maui, Hawaii. Los Alamitas: IEEEGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekman P (1996) Why don’t we catch liars? Soc Res (New York) 63: 801–818Google Scholar
  13. Grice P (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffin MA, Patterson MG, West MA (2001) Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor support. J Organ Behav 22: 537–550. doi: 10.1002/job.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1998) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. J Computer-Mediated Commun 3(4). June 1998, at
  16. Lafferty J, Eady P (1974) The desert survival problem. Experimental Learning Methods, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  17. Le Poire B, Shepard C, Duggan A, Burgoon J (2003) Relational messages associated with nonverbal involvement, pleasantness, and expressiveness in romantic couples. Communication Research ReportsGoogle Scholar
  18. Markova I, Graumann CF, Foppa K (eds) (1995) Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. McCroskey JC, Hamilton PR, Weiner AM (1974) The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Hum Commun Res 1: 42–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCornack SA, Parks MR (1986) Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. In: McLaughlin ML (eds) Communication yearbook 9. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp 377–389Google Scholar
  21. McCroskey JC, Young TJ (1981) Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. Cent States Speech J 32: 24–34Google Scholar
  22. Walther JB, Bunz U, Bazarova NN (2005) The rules of virtual groups. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Big Island, HI. Los Alamitas: IEEEGoogle Scholar
  23. Walther JB, Loh T, Granka L (2009) Let me count the ways: the interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Watzlawick P, Beavin JH, Jackson DD (1967) Pragmatics of human communication: a study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. W. W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judee K. Burgoon
    • 1
  • Fang Chen
    • 2
  • Douglas P. Twitchell
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for the Management of InformationUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Finance and Accounting, I.H. Asper School of BusinessUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Department of Management Information Systems, School of Information TechnologyIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations