The theory that I will be discussing in this first journal entry, will be the ‘Interpersonal Deception Theory’ written by David Buller and Judee Burgoon. The theory in a nutshell tries to breakdown the communicative relationship between two separate parties in a conversation, the sender and the receiver. The two writers attempt to make sense of the thought process that occurs when a deception is being conveyed between both the sender and the receiver. Buller and Burgoon state that interpersonal communication is interactive, and that strategic deception demands mental effort. The sender needs effort in order to make his deception/lie more convincing, while the receiver must put forth effort when trying to decipher whether or not the sender is being honest with them. Buller and Burgoon go on to discuss how the deceiver uses manipulating language, which is the way the sender delivers his message, and the control of their non-verbal cues which can give away their deception/lie. The theory suggests that the truth will almost always come out, due to the belief that there are always signs that the sender gives off, which allow the receiver to know that he or she is being lied to. The theory ends with the ‘truth bias’, the belief that people who know and like each other will be less likely to have any doubts on whether they are being told the truth or not, because of the “trust” that has been built.
I think this theory is accurate for the most part, and I say “most part” because I know that there are some deceivers out there who have mastered the craft of lying and don’t get caught. In my opinion I thought that there were three main components. The first is the ‘manipulative language’, which is the language and look of liars. I agree with this part of the theory, because when I lie to someone’s face I make sure to.
If you can keep your answers short and simple then you should do so. Lying in a short statement is much more believable than a long drawn out story. Using vague statements to create a level of assurance in the conversation is a primary point. Vague statements allow more of a cohesive link between the communicators. The vagueness allows for more of the receiver's thoughts to wander and help structure how they want conversation to be. If the sender makes it seem casual, the receiver of the short message has no reason not to believe the sender. ". Information management-regulating message content so as to curtail conversation, restrict amount of information conveyed, evade verification, convey tentativeness, and distance deceivers from what they are saying while manufacturing plausible messagesaE (Burgoon et al. 1999, p. 670).
What the authors of the theory are trying to explain is that you can control every aspect of your speech. If you manage the word economy well with correct wording, the false statements are very believable. You never want to deny anything in your original statement. You just want to put out a very general idea of what you want to be known, and leave it at that.
To try to answer your question with as much accuracy as possible, let us assume that the "deception theory" that you may be referring to is Buller and Burgoon's (1996) Interpersonal Deception theory ( IDT ). Parting from this premise, let us explain that the IDT is treated as an extension of of interpersonal communication. It studies deception as a form of self-preservation practice (scapegoat) that is done both verbally, and non verbally. The theory contends that deception comes in five different forms, and they are all used during communication to convey false information.
a) a lie - false information
b) equivocation- contradictory statements
c) exaggeration- embellishing information
d) understatement - down-playing facts
e) concealment- hiding or leaving out facts.
This kind of false and malicious information is provided in one of three environments.
a) a dyadic environment, where two people exchange information.
b) a relational environment, where two people exchange information in different settings, at the same time.
c) the dialogical environment, where there is information flowing from one side to another, with the aim of reaching a conclusion. This latter is what we see in investigations and during interrogations. We can even see it during the Socratic dialogue of teachers and students, or during an interview between a therapist and a client.
The interpersonal deception theory contends that there are more than 18 different instances where a person who wants to deceit can actually attempt it. They refer to specific situational instances that enable someone to try and deceit to cause a loss of focus. However, the actual deception theory is intrinsically connected with the interpersonal deception theory. Therefore, the elements of it are basically broken down into what constitutes a deception, and in what instances the deception is most likely to occur.
In modern forensic psychology scenarios the IDT is the basis of the many TV shows about criminal profiling that we see today. This is because the IDT explains five ways in which we can detect deception in people. These are studied from the point of view of how us, as primitives, were able to instill in others fear, warning, compassion, or anger, without formal speech. Hence, deception can be detected in these non-verbal scenarios:
Therefore, all these serve as basic tenets to determine the possibility and plausibility of deceit in modern communication.
like 1dislike 0
Wagner, Lyndsey, "Disharmony and Matchless: Interpersonal Deception Theory in Online Dating" (2011). Masters Theses. Paper 210.
In recent years, computer-media dated communication has not only become extremely popular but has also begun to hold an important function in daily social interactions. This qualitative study investigates the communication phenomena of deception as it occurs in the online dating environment. The research study focused on four questions: (1) About what characteristics are online daters deceptive? (2) What motivation do online daters have for their deception of others in the online dating environment? (3) What perceptions do online daters have about other daters' deceit towards them in the online dating environment? (4) How does deception affect the romantic relationships formed in the online dating environment? Through an online surveying tool data was collected with 15 open ended questions. A total of 52 participants were included in the study ranging in ages from 21-37. The results of the study found that the majority of online daters consider themselves and others to be mostly honest in their online self presentations. Those online daters that did use deception were motivated to do so by the longing to attract members of the opposite sex and project a positive self-image. Daters were also willing to overlook deception in others if they viewed the dishonesty as a slight exaggeration or characteristic of little value to the dater. Despite the deception that does occur, participants still believe that the online dating environment is capable of developing successful romantic relationships.
HONORS: COMMUNICATION CAPSTONE
SPRING 2001 THEORY WORKBOOK
Explanation of Theory:
Communication senders attempt to manipulate messages so as to be untruthful, which may cause them apprehension concerning their false communication being detected. Simultaneously, communication receivers try to unveil or detect the validity of that information, causing suspicion about whether or not the sender is being deceitful.
Theorists: Buller and Burgoon
Buller, D.B. and Burgoon, J.K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6. 203-242.
There are three aspects of deceptive messages:
* The central deceptive message, which is usually verbal.
* Ancillary message, which includes both verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication that often reveals the truthfulness of a particular message.
* Inadvertent behaviors which are mostly nonverbal and help to point out the deceit of the sender through a term called leakage.
As far as the nature of reality, Deception Theory is very humanistic in that it views multiple realities all contingent on the different situational factors on individuals involved.
In terms of knowledge, this theory is also humanistic. What is discovered from the research depends entirely on who is doing the knowing.
The Interpersonal Deception Theory is humanistic in the sense of values. Values of the individuals involved are concluded from their own values and experiences.
From the research I have found on this theory, I believe Interpersonal Deception Theory to be mostly a humanistic theory. Besides the fact that it predicts that humans attempt to deceive and the receiver evaluates the communication behavior to determine the validity of the message, it has very little predictive power. It can not predict truthfulness in a specific instance between two specific people because such a unique event is contingent on so many things. Contingencies include whether the deception was premeditated, if there was time available to plan, the consequences of being detected, and the anticipated success of escaping detection. This theory mostly explains the different types of deceptive acts, motives for deception, and describes the factors that measure whether an attempt at deception will be a successful act.
Ideas and Implications:
Interpersonal Deception is a useful theory for someone who has either attempted to deceive or thought someone was trying to deceive them. It helps when looking back on a situation to evaluate the verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors to discover if someone has lied. This theory is usually self-serving, but can also be used to maintain an interpersonal relationship. Everyone has lied and everyone has been lied to, so Deception Theory is very useful and practical.
A concrete example to help understand Interpersonal Deception is an experience between two best friends, Madeline and Isabell:
Last weekend while Isabell was out of town, Madeline got too intoxicated at a fraternity party and kissed her best friend's boyfriend. Not only is Madeline not telling Isabell about what happened, even when she questioned her about what she did last weekend, Madeline lied and said she went to a friend's house and did not even drink.
Shuy, R.W. (1998). The Language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception.
Dupuy, J.P. (1998). Self-Deception and Paradoxes of Rationality.
Cooper, T.W. (1998). A Time Before Deception: Truth in Communication, Culture, and Ethics.
Location in Eight (8) Primary Communication Theory Textbooks:
Anderson, R. & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. N/A
Cragan, J. F. & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. pp. 285-286.
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. N/A
Griffin, E. (1997). A first look at communication theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. N/A
Infante, D. A. Rancer, A. S. & Womack, D. F. (1997). Building communication theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. N/A
Littlejohn, S. W. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp. 146-147.
West, R. & Turner, L. H. (2000). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. p. 64.
Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. N/A
Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) attempts to explain the manner in which individuals deal with actual or perceived deception on the conscious and subconscious levels while engaged in face-to-face communication. Communication is not static; it is influenced not only by one's own goals, but also by the context of the interaction as it unfolds. The sender’s conduct and messages are affected by conduct and messages of the receiver, and vice versa. Furthermore, deception differs from truthful communication. Intentional deception requires significantly more cognitive resources than truthful communication, whether the sender engages in falsification (lying ), concealment (ommitting material facts), or equivocation (skirting issues by changing the subject or offering indirect responses). IDT explores the interrelation between communicative context and sender and receiver cognitions and behaviors in deceptive exchanges.Theoretical Perspective
Interpersonal Deception Theory views deception through the theoretical lens of interpersonal communication. As such, it considers deception as an interactive process between a sender and receiver. In contrast with previous studies of deception that focused on the sender and receiver individually, IDT focuses on the dyadic, relational, and dialogic nature of deceptive communication. Behaviors between the sender and receiver are dynamic, multifunctional, multidimensional, and multimodal. (Buller and Burgoon, 1998)
Consider the framework of psychotherapy and psychological counseling. The dyadic, relational and dialogic activity between therapist and patient relies upon honest, open communication if the patient is to recover and successfully integrate into healthier relationships. Deception uses the same theoretical framework, only in reverse, as the communication of one participant is deliberately false.History
Sigmund Freud studied nonverbal cues to detect deception about a century ago. Freud observed a patient being asked about his darkest feelings. If his mouth was shut and his fingers were trembling, he was considered to be lying. In 1989, DePaulo and Kirkendol developed the Motivation Impairment Effect (MIE). MIE states the harder people try to deceive others, the more likely they are to get caught. Burgoon and Floyd, however, revisited this research and formed the idea that deceivers are more active in their attempt to deceive than most would anticipate or expect.
IDT was developed by two communication professors, David B. Buller and Judee K. Burgoon. Prior to their study, deception had not been fully considered as a communication activity. Previous work had focused upon the formulation of principles of deception. These principles were derived by evaluating the lie detection ability of individuals observing unidirectional communication. These early studies found initially that “although humans are far from infallible in their efforts to diagnose lies, they are substantially better at the task than would result merely by chance.” Buller and Burgoon discount the value of highly controlled studies – usually one-way communication experiments – designed to isolate unmistakable cues that people are lying. Therefore, IDT is based on two-way communication and intended to describe deception as an interactive communicative process.18 Propositions
IDT's model of how deception is played out in interpersonal contexts is presented in the form of 18 empirically verifiable propositions. Based on primitive assumptions associated with interpersonal communication and deception, each proposition is capable of generating testable hypotheses. While some propositions are original with IDT, many are derived from earlier research. The propositions attempt to explain the cognitions and behaviors of both the sender and receiver during each phase of the iterative process of deception, from preinteraction factors to the interactive process to postinteraction outcomes. (Buller and Burgoon, 1996)The Superordinate Role of Context and Relationship
IDT's explanations of interpersonal deception depend on the situation in which interaction occurs and the relationship between the sender and receiver.
Individual communicators also approach deceptive exchanges with their own set of preinteraction factors, such as expectancies, knowledge, goals or intentions, and behavioral repertoires that reflect their communication competence. IDT posits that such factors influence the deceptive exchange.
IDT posits that preinteraction factors influence the sender's initial detection apprehension and deceptive displays.
IDT further posits that preinteraction factors, combined with initial behavioral displays, affect receivers' initial suspicion and continual detection accuracy.
IDT proceeds to describe the iterative process of receiver suspicion displays and sender reactions to those displays.
Finally, IDT posits that a deceptive interaction culminates in a set of post-interaction judgements regarding sender credibility and receiver suspicion. In other words, the interaction between sender and receiver influences how credible the receiver thinks the sender is and how suspicious the sender thinks the receiver is.
Most people believe they can spot deception, but IDT holds that most cannot. There are a variety of things a deceiver must do simultaneously to ensure what they are saying comes across as true, most important of which is how the deceiver manages his or her verbal and nonverbal cues. According to IDT, the more socially aware a receiver is, the better he or she is at detecting deceit.
How successful is the average receiver in detecting deception? Not very successful at all, according to recent studies. [citation needed ] This may be because there is a social contract that people will be honest with one another and believe others will be honest with them. If a deceiver begins a deceptive exchange with an accurate, validated statement, that statement might guide the receiver to believe the rest of the deceiver's story is also true. Ultimately, the sender prepares the receiver to accept his or her information as truth, even if some or part of the dialogue is false. If the sender constantly uses the same tactic, however, the receiver will become more aware, and it might become apparent the sender is lying. (Buller and Burgoon, 1996)Emotion in IDT
Emotion plays a central role in IDT, both as a motivator and a result of deception. Emotion can be a motivator of deception, as the sender relies on relevant knowledge-informational, relational, and behavioral familiarity (Buller & Burgoon, 1996) in order to achieve goals such as self-gratification, avoiding negative emotional outcome, or creating negative emotional outcome for the target of deception. Emotion can also be a result of deception, as a physical response occurs within the sender, usually in the form of arousal and negative affect (Ekman & Friensen, 1969; Zuckerman, DePaulo et al. 1981).Emotional Leakage
Emotion in deception is manifested most overtly in nonverbal signals. Some studies indicate over 90% of emotional meaning is communicated nonverbally. Fortunately, humans are highly sensitive to body signals. Often, communication is ambivalent: people communicate one thing verbally and the opposite nonverbally. Leakage refers to communicative incidents in which nonverbal signals betray the true content of contradictory verbal messages. Examples of leakage:Facial Expression
Six basic emotions are communicated through facial expression: happiness. surprise. fear. sadness. anger. and disgust /contempt. [citation needed ] These emotions are generally recognized universally across cultures. There are two main "routes" through which these expressions are developed: "route one", held to be innate, and "route two", which depends on processes of socialization.
Different cultures have varying display rules that govern the social use of facial expressions. For example, the Japanese discourage the display of negative emotions. Sometimes, individuals find it difficult to control facial expression. The face may "leak" information about how they feel. For instance, a person might be unable to hide his or her embarrassment when meeting someone who has a disfiguring scar, or he or she might find it difficult to disguise disgust when treating a wound or working with an incontinent person.Gaze
People use eye contact to signal threat, intimacy and interest. Eye contact is used to regulate turn-taking in conversation and is a key factor in deciding how interested the receiver is in what the sender is saying. Receivers usually look about 70-75% of the time, with each gaze averaging 7.8 seconds. If receivers look for only 15% of the time, they might be considered cold, pessimistic, cautious, defensive, immature, evasive or indifferent. If they look over 80% of the time, they might be considered friendly, self-confident, natural or sincere.Gesture
The use of gesture is one of the most culture-specific forms of nonverbal communication and can lead to misinterpretations and accidental insults. For example, holding out an arm and squeezing the thumb and forefinger together, used by the French and sometimes the British to indicate something is perfect, would be considered vulgar in the Mediterranean region, as it would be thought to denote the vagina.
Involuntary gestures described as self-touching actions, such as touching the face, scratching, gripping the hands together, or putting the hands in or near the mouth, often occur when people are experiencing intense emotions such as depression, elation or extreme anxiety.
An example of leakage as it relates to gesture is found the work of Ekman and Friesen, who showed a film of a woman with depression to a group of research participants. The participants were asked to judge the woman's mood. Those shown only the woman's face thought she was happy and cheerful, while the group who saw only her body thought she was tense, nervous and disturbed.Touch
Touch can be a valuable means of reassurance and of demonstrating understanding. Humans touch one another to show sexual intimacy, affiliation and understanding; in greetings and farewells; as an act of aggression; and to emphasize dominance. Argyle writes that there “appear to be definite rules which permit certain kinds of touch, between certain people, on certain occasions only. Bodily contact outside these narrow limits is unacceptable” (1996). Those who touch others are seen as having enhanced status, assertiveness and warmth, while those who are touched are seen as having less.Criticism of IDT
DePaulo, Ansfield, and Bell question the theoretical status of IDT. They write, “We cannot find the 'why' question in Buller and Burgoon's synthesis. There is no intriguing riddle or puzzle that needs to be solved, and no central explanatory mechanism is ever described" (DePaulo et al. 1996, p. 298). They applaud Buller and Burgoon’s 18 propositions as a comprehensive description of the timeline of deceptive interactions, but fault the propositions for lacking the interconnectedness and predictive power necessary to qualify as a unifying theory. DePaulo et al also criticize IDT for failing to distinguish between interactive communication, which emphasizes the situational and contextual aspects of communicative exchanges, from interpersonal communication, which emphasizes exchanges in which the sender and receiver make psychological predictions about one another’s behavior based on person-specific prior knowledge. They argue that this conceptual ambiguity limits IDT’s explanatory power. (DePaulo et al. 1996; see also Stiff, 1996)References
I use to have a boyfriend since fourth year high school. We were on for almost two years at the present. We were so open to each other. No secrets allowed. Our relationship is getting intimate until the time comes that I cannot move independently anymore. He interferes with my decisions, it seems like I cannot breath!disaster talaga!
It was my birthday and I feel so bad spending my day just like any other ordinary days and knowing that my dear boyfriend haven’t called me for the whole day not even bothering to greet me. I went to my friend’s house to celebrate the night. We were having fun when he suddenly called. He asked me where I was and I can’t find the words to say because I know he would be so angry if he would know that I’m not at the dormitory. So I told him that I just went out to buy something with my friends and that I would immediately go back to the dormitory afterwards. He was so angry as I have expected. He was really like that. I became angry too. Because he was the last person to greet me a happy birthday instead of being the first one. He didn’t understand that I don’t wanna spoil the moment because it’s my birthday and I wanna celebrate. Then we fought, and that was the sudden cause of our breakup. He knew I was lying. I don’t know, maybe he really knew me that much. Our breakup was shallow right? One thing more, he was the most jealous boyfriend I ever had!
There was also a time that I have been deceived by my cousin. It was two years ago and both me and my cousin stayed at my grandfather’s house during school days. He was a college student and I was in high school. We eat our meals together especially dinner. That’s the reason why we were so close to each other until the present. One night, he didn’t went home. I waited for him for the dinner but he didn’t arrive. He came home the next day. I asked him where he’s been and he told me he spent the night at his classmate’s boarding house to do some projects. I can hear some shakes on his voice and he cannot look at me straight at the eye. Well obviously he was lying but I didn’t question him further about it. It is only when he graduated that he confessed that he has been to Kaamulan Festival at Malaybalay City that night he was out. The nerve noh? …grrrrr.
According to Buller and Burgoon, we use deception in order to avoid hurting or offending another person, to emphasize our best qualities, to avoid getting into a conflict or to speed up or slow down a relationship. Well,for me it slowed down our relationship because maybe I’m not a good actress or he’s just very good in detecting deceptions. I was caught and so I suffered the consequence. But I was happy because we reconciled after a week for we know that was a very little thing to cause our relationship into a break up..right?
It’s not the only time that I was deceived nor I deceived a person, I know you too deceived lots of people but we have our different other reasons such as what Burgoon and Buller stated.
Have a nice day. ciao. -)
Everyone lies. Who doesn’t? We all have reasons why we lie. It could be for our personal interest or to cover up someone to avoid getting in trouble. But summing it all up, according to the Ethical Reflections, still, lying is bad.
I am a deceiver. Yes, I am. I always deceive my father in giving me money. I always ask him to send me money so that I could buy the things I want, but that’s what he doesn’t know. All that he knows is I’m using his money for my school expenses. I hate the guilt that I’m feeling inside. But I can’t do anything about it now. I already lied.
I often conceal the reason behind my frequent asking of money. Of course, if I’d tell the truth, he won’t send me money anymore and will probably scold me. You see, I lie for my personal interest.
My dad hasn’t discovered the truth yet. It’s because I use “school” as an excuse for him to send me money. And if ever he felt I lied, I could use some of my charms to dodge the issue. LOL. If my father asked me if I had already spent all of my money, I’d answer a big yes to avoid further inquisition from him. But if he’d ask me what did I buy or where did I use my money, I’d simply answer, “Photocopies (with a tired look in the face).”
If the truth would come out (I hope not), obviously, my father won’t trust me anymore and would stop sending me money. There would probably be a gap between the two of us and I don’t want that to happen.
So before my deception with my dad and maybe with other people, become an addiction and worsen things up, I should control and eventually stop lying and practice telling the truth. I don’t want to suffer grave consequences so I better stop deceiving people so I won’t have to break their trust.