Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deceptive Communication in Group Contexts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication

Abstract

Unethical behavior is often viewed as an individual-level phenomenon. However, group membership can influence individuals’ choices to behave ethically or not (Messick, 2006). This chapter discusses whether and when groups will be more likely than individuals to use deception. We focus on three areas of research. The first involves comparing individuals and groups in mixed-motive situations, and the discontinuity between individual and group responses to economic games: individuals tend to cooperate while groups tend to compete (Wildschut, Pinter, Vevea, Insko, & Schopler, 2003). In terms of deception, this is interesting as both individuals and groups initially cooperate. We discuss explanations for groups’ unethical tendencies and their relation to why groups use deception. Second, we focus on general differences between individual and group deception. Deception can be beneficial when negotiating, and groups tend to use deception to their benefit (Cohen, Gunia, Kim-Jun, & Murnighan, 2009; Sutter, 2009). Finally, we discuss explanations for these effects and provide a framework for understanding when and why groups use deception.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. S. (2010). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,99(4), 622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: Are groups more “rational” players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40(5), 599–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G., & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game: Are groups more “rational” players? Experimental Economics,1(1), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. R. (2006). An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and Social Psychology (pp. 143–161). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. K., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science,318(5850), 636–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T. R., Gunia, B. C., Kim-Jun, S. Y., & Murnighan, J. K. (2009). Do groups lie more than individuals? Honesty and deception as a function of strategic self-interest. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45(6), 1321–1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T. R., Meier, B. P., Hinsz, V. B., & Insko, C. A. (2010). Competitive group interactions: Why they exist and how to overcome them. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups (pp. 223–236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrads, J., Irlenbusch, B., Rilke, R. M., & Walkowitz, G. (2013). Lying and team incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology,34, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(3), 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Deru, C. K. (2010). Social value orientation moderates ingroup love but not outgroup hate in competitive intergroup conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,13(6), 701–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., …, Feith, S. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science, 328(5984), 1408–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review,12(1), 22–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters,99(1), 197–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U., & Heusi, F. (2008). Lies in disguise: An experimental study on cheating (Research Paper Series). Thurgau Institute of Economics and Department of Economics at the University of Konstanz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The role of consequences. The American Economic Review,95(1), 384–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science,19(4), 405–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves Heap, S. P., & Zizzo, D. J. (2009). The value of groups. The American Economic Review,99(1), 295–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances and Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J., & Graetz, K. A. (1990). Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(1), 68–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kameda, T., & Tindale, R. S. (2006). Groups as adaptive devices: Human docility and group aggregation mechanisms in evolutionary context. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 317–341). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kameda, T., Tindale, R. S., & Davis, J. H. (2003). Cognitions, preferences, and social sharedness: Past, present, and future directions in group decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 458–485). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, S. (2014). Group reactions to dishonesty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,124(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review,103(2), 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. Progress in Social Psychology,1, 127–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,22(3), 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., & Kerr, N. L. (2007). Inclusion and exclusion: Implications for group processes. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 759–784). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodewijkx, H. F., Rabbie, J. M., & Visser, L. (2006). “Better to be safe than to be sorry”: Extinguishing the individual—Group discontinuity effect in competition by cautious reciprocation. European Review of Social Psychology,17(1), 185–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M. (2006). Ethics in groups: The road to hell. In E. Mannix, M. Neale, & A. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Ethics in groups (Vol. 8). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Knowing others’ preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,98, 794–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. M., & Tindale, R. S. (2002). Group vs individual performance in mixed-motive situations: Exploring an inconsistency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,87(1), 44–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinter, B., Insko, C. A., Wildschut, T., Kirchner, J. L., Montoya, R. M., & Wolf, S. T. (2007). Reduction of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: The role of leader accountability and proneness to guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93(2), 250–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,123(3), 238–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80(6), 918–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1992). The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. European Review of Social Psychology,3(1), 121–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. E. (2001). Moral issues in business (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Davis, J. H. (1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision-making groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 279–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stawiski, S., Tindale, R. S., & Dykema-Engblade, A. (2009). The effects of ethical climate on group and individual level deception in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management,20(3), 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,69(4), 619–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, M. (2009). Individual behavior and group membership: Comment. The American Economic Review,99(5), 2247–2257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Brodt, S. E. (1996). Team negotiation: An examination of integrative and distributive bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70(3), 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, R. S. (2008). The wisdom (an occasional lack thereof) of groups. Presidential Address Presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association Annual Convention, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). ‘Social sharedness’ as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,3(2), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, R. S., Morgan, P., Stawiski, S., Dykema-Engblade, A., Meisenhelder, H., Wittkowski, E., & Jacobs, E. (2006). Further explorations of the individual-group discontinuity effect. Paper Presented at the First Annual INGRoup Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, R. S., Smith, C. M., Thomas, L. S., Filkins, J., & Sheffey, S. (1996). Shared representations and asymmetric social influence processes in small groups. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (pp. 81–103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2006). A paradox of individual and group morality: Social psychology as empirical philosophy. In P. A. M. Van Lange (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinary approaches (pp. 377–384). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2007). Explanations of interindividual—Intergroup discontinuity: A review of the evidence. European Review of Social Psychology,18(1), 175–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildschut, T., Insko, C. A., & Pinter, B. (2007). Interindividual—Intergroup discontinuity as a joint function of acting as a group and interacting with a group. European Journal of Social Psychology,37(2), 390–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin,129(5), 698–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jeremy R. Winget & R. Scott Tindale

Authors
  1. Jeremy R. Winget
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Scott Tindale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy R. Winget .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Studies, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA

    Tony Docan-Morgan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Winget, J.R., Scott Tindale, R. (2019). Deceptive Communication in Group Contexts. In: Docan-Morgan, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_32

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation