Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barriers to Deceiving Other Group Members in Virtual Settings

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

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken M, Waller B (2000) Flaming among first-time group support system users. Inform Manage 37: 95–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport GW, Vernon P, Lindzey G (1951) A Study of Values. Riverside Publishing, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 195–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 119–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller D, Burgoon J (1996) Interpersonal deception theory. Commun Theory 6: 203–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller D, Strzyzewski K, Comstock J (1991) Interpersonal deception: I. Deceivers’ reactions to receivers’ suspicions and probing. Commun Monogr 58: 1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller D, Stiff J, Burgoon J (1996) Behavioral adaptation in deceptive transactions. Human Commun Res 22(4): 589–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon J (2005) The future of motivated deception. In: Kalbfleisch P. (ed.) Communication Yearbook 29. Erlbaum, Mahway, NJ, pp 49–95

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 163–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 33–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon J, Buller D, Floyd K (2001) Does participation affect deception success? A test of the interactivity principle. Human Commun Res 27(4): 503–534

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 657–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon J, Burgoon M, Broneck K, Alvaro E, Nunamaker J (2002b) Effects of synchronicity and proximity on group communication. National Communication Association, New Orleans

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon J, Chen F, Twitchell D (2010) Deception and its detection under synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decis Negot 19(4): 345–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke K, Chidambaram L (1999) How much bandwidth is enough? A longitudinal examination of media characteristics and group outcomes. MIS Q 23(4): 557–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson J, Zmud R (1999) Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Acad Manage Rev 42(2): 153–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson J, George J, Burgoon J, Adkins M, White C (2004) Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decis Negot 13(1): 5–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 465–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 149–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly T, Jessup L, Valacich J (1990) Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Manage Sci 36(6): 689–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis A, Garfield M (2003) The adoption and use of GSS in project teams: toward more participative processes and outcomes. MIS Q 27(2): 289–323

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, HI

  • DePaulo B, Kirkendol S (1989) The motivation impairment effect in the communication of deception. In: Yuille J (ed.) Credibility assessment. Klewer, Duerne, Belgium, pp 51–70

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 177–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo B, Lindsay J, Malone B, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129(1): 74–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P (1992) Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage, vol 2. WW Norton and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Er MC, Ng AC (1995) The anonymity and proximity factors in group decision support systems. Decis Support Syst 14: 75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad J, Hiltz SR (1999) An assessment of group support systems experimental research: methodology and results. J Manage Inform Syst 15(3): 7–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming P, Zyglidopoulos S (2008) The escalation of deception in organizations. J Bus Ethics 81(4): 837–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 1362–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe B, Dennis A, Cooper W, Valacich J, Nunamaker J, Bastianutti L (1992) Electronic brainstorming and group size. Acad Manage J 35: 350–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George J, Marett K (2005) Deception: the dark side of e-collaboration. Int J e-Collab 1(4): 24–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy C (1995) Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Bus Rev 73(3): 40

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayne S, Pollard C, Rice R (2003) Identification of comment authorship in anonymous group support systems. J Manage Inform Syst 20(1): 301–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci 10(6): 791–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 266–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 275–289

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 427–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 263–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating C, Heltman K (1994) Dominance and deception in children and adults: are leaders the best misleaders?. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 20(3): 312–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyton J (1999) Analyzing interaction patterns in dysfunctional teams. Small Group Res 30(4): 491–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler S, Sproull L (1992) Group decision making and communication technology. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 52: 96–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire T (1984) Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am Psychol 39(10): 1123–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling R (1991) Cooperation, coordination, and control in computer-supported work. Commun ACM 34(12): 83–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruempel K (2000) Making the right (interactive) moves for knowledge-producing in computer-mediated groups. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 43(2): 185–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary M (1996) Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Westview Press, Boulder, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine T, Park HS, McCornack S (1999) Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: documenting the ’veracity effect’. Commun Monogr 66: 125–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 261–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier N, Thurber J (1968) Accuracy of judgments of deception when an interview is watched, heard, and read. Person Psychol 21: 23–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marett K, George J (2004) Deception in the case of one sender and multiple receivers. Group Decis Negot 13: 29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus L (1994) Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organ Sci 5(4): 502–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski M, Chudoba K (2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ Sci 11(5): 473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 706–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker J, Dennis A, Valacich J, Vogel D, George J (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Commun ACM 34(7): 40–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 181–213

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 185–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips S, Eisenberg E (1993) Strategic uses of electronic mail in organizations. Electron J Commun 3(2)

  • Piccoli G, Ives B (2003) Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams. Mis Q 27(3): 365–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Postmes T, Spears R, Lea M (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Commun Res 25(6): 689–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao S, Lim J (2000) The impact of involuntary cues on media effects. In: 33rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences

  • 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): 28–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 241–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 106–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer M, Brodt S, Croson R (2002) Seeing and believing: visual access and the strategic use of deception. Int J Conflict Manage 13(3): 258–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 456–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. John Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman D (2011) Deception in the workplace: recent research and promising new directions. Sociol Compass 5(1): 52–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel J, Dubrovsky V, Kiesler S, McGuire T (1986) Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 37: 157–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spears R, Lea M (1994) Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Commun Res 21(4): 427–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull L, Kiesler S (1986) Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manage Sci 32(11): 1492–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiff J, Kim H, Ramesh C (1992) Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception. Commun Res 19(3): 326–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sussman S, Sproull L (1999) Straight talk: delivering bad news through electronic communication. Inform Syst Res 10(2): 150–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Tung L, Turban E (1998) A proposed research framework for distributed group support systems. Decis Support Syst 23: 175–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valacich J, George J, Nunamaker J, Vogel D (1994) Physical proximity effects on computer-mediated group idea generation. Small Group Res 25(1): 83–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valacich J, Paranka D, George J, Nunamaker J (1993) Communication concurrency and the new media. Commun Res 20(2): 249–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2000) Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A, Edward K, Roberts K, Bull R (2000) Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. J Nonverb Behav 24(4): 239–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther J, Burgoon J (1992) Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Commun Res 19: 50–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson R, DeSanctis G, Poole MS (1988) Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Q 12(3): 463–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 16–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou L (2005) An empirical investigation of deception behavior in instant messaging. IEEE Trans Profess Commun 48(2): 147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 139–165

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 95–116

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 129–147

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Information Systems, College of Business, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, 39762, USA

    Kent Marett

  2. Department of Management Information Systems, College of Business, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Joey F. George

Authors
  1. Kent Marett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joey F. George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent Marett.

Additional information

Portions of this research were supported by funding from the U. S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research under the U. S. Department of Defense University Research Initiative (Grant #F49620-01-1-0394). The views, opinions, and/or findings in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of Defense position, policy, or decision.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marett, K., George, J.F. Barriers to Deceiving Other Group Members in Virtual Settings. Group Decis Negot 22, 89–115 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9297-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9297-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation