Skip to main content
Log in

Deception in the Case of One Sender and Multiple Receivers

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

Abstract

Much if not all of the literature on interpersonal communication and deception has focused on the interaction between two people, with one person attempting to deceive the other. This paper seeks to extend the prior literature by presenting some initial thoughts on deceptive communication when there is one deceiver and multiple receivers. Viewing deceptive communication as a dynamic, strategic process, individual, situational, and group factors that may inform the deceiver of a particular strategy are presented.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brown, G. (1995). Speakers, Listeners, and Communicators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. and J. Burgoon. (1996). “Interpersonal Deception Theory,” Communication Theory 6, 203–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D., K. Strzyzewski, and J. Comstock. (1991). “Interpersonal Deception: I. Deceivers' Reactions to Receivers' Suspicions and Probing,” Communication Monographs 58, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J., D. Buller, L. Dillman, and J. Walther. (1995). “Interpersonal Deception: IV. Effects of Suspicion on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics,” Human Communication Research 22 (2), 163–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J., D. Buller, K. Floyd, and J. Grandpre. (1996). “Deceptive Realities: Sender, Receiver, and Observer Perspectives in Deceptive Conversations,” Communication Research 23 (6), 724–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J., D. Buller, C. White, W. Afifi, and A. Buslig. (1999). “The Role of Conversational Involvement in Deceptive Interpersonal Interactions,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (6), 669–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, J. and R. Zmud. (1999). “Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions,” Academy of Management Review 42 (2), 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. and R. Lengel. (1986). “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design,” Management Science 32 (5), 554–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., R. Lengel, and L. Trevino. (1987). “Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly 11 (3), 355–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B., J. Lindsay, B. Malone, L. Muhlenbruck, K. Charlton, and H. Cooper. (2003). “Cues to Deception,” Psychological Bulletin 129 (1), 74–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1992). Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage, vol. 2. New York: WW Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. and P. Lane. (2000). “Strategizing Throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal,” Academy of Management Review 25 (1), 154–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigone, D. and R. Hastie. (1993). “The Common Knowledge Effect: Information Sharing and Group Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (5), 959–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S. (1993a). “Lying, Deceit, and Subterfuge: A Model of Dishonesty in the Workplace,” Organization Science 4 (3), 478–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S. (1993b). “Why Professionals Lie: The Impact of Professional Role Conflict on Reporting Accuracy,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55, 251–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D., E. Mannix, K. Williams, and M. Neale. (1996). “Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67 (1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirokawa, R., L. Erbert, and A. Hurst. (1996). “Communication and Group Decision-Making Effectiveness,” in R. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 269–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. and S. McCornack. (1992). “Linking Love and Lies: A Formal Test of the McCornack and Parks Model of Deception Detection,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9, 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T., H. S. Park, and S. McCornack. (1999). “Accuracy in Detecting Truths and Lies: Documenting the 'Veracity Effect',” Communication Monographs 66, 125–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (1988). “Putting Linguistics on a Proper Footing: Explorations in Goffman's Concepts of Participation,” in P. Drew and A. Wooten (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, 161-227.

  • Lykken, D. (1978). “The Psychopath and the Lie Detector,” Psychophysiology 15, 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. and J. Stiff. (1993). Deceptive Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Sullivan, P. (2000). “What You Don't Know Won't Hurt Me: Impression Management Functions of Communication Channels in Relationships,” Human Communication Research 26 (3), 403–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, K. (1988). “Speaking Turns in Small Group Interaction: A Context-Sensitive Event Sequence Model,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (6), 965–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S. and E. Eisenberg. (1993). “Strategic Uses of Electronic Mail in Organizations,” Electronic Journal of Communication 3 (2).

  • Platania, J. and G. Moran. (2001). “Social Facilitation as a Function of the Mere Presence of Others,” Journal of Social Psychology 141 (2), 190–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanna, L. and L. Shotland. (1990). “Valence of Anticipated Evaluation and Social Facilitation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 26, 82–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G. and L. Taylor. (1991). “Speaking Turns in Face-to-Face Discussions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (5), 675–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiff, J., H. Kim, and C. Ramesh. (1992). “Truth Biases and Aroused Suspicion in Relational Deception,” Communication Research 19 (3), 326–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toris, D. and B. DePaulo. (1985). “Effects of Actual Deception and Suspiciousness of Deception on Interpersonal Perceptions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 1063–1073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardle, M. and D. Gloss. (1982). “Effects of Lying and Conformity on Decision-Making Behavior,” Psychological Reports 51, 871–877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. (1998). “Information Sampling in Decision-Making Groups: The Impact of Members,” Task-Relevant Status. Small Group Research 29 (1), 57–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G. (2000). “The Bias Toward Discussing Shared Information: Why are High-Status Group Members Immune?” Communication Research 27 (3), 379–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. (1965). “Social Facilitation,” Science 149 (3681), 269–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M. and R. Driver. (1985). “Telling Lies: Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of Deception,” in A. W. Siegman and S. Feldstein (eds.), Nonverbal Communication: An Integrated Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 129–147.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marett, L.K., George, J.F. Deception in the Case of One Sender and Multiple Receivers. Group Decision and Negotiation 13, 29–44 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011943.73672.9b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011943.73672.9b

Keywords

Navigation