Interpersonal Deception Theory

Running head: INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

Interpersonal deception theory: Detecting deception within friendships

Introduction

When dealing with deception, there are millions of reasons people to choose to lie, and depending on the approaches they take, some people can consistently prevent themselves from being caught. So how many times are we deceived without even noticing? In the study of interpersonal communication, the matter of deception finds people in situations where they speak in a dishonest matter to prevent harm or cause offense to someone else. Interpersonal deception theory examines the important elements of interpersonal communication and deception that occurs within interpersonal relationships. This theory is studied among two or more people at a certain time in any given context. All research conducted has included both males and females, and usually is done within friendships or among acquaintances. It is important to know what researchers have already discovered about the theory because it is not only interesting, but could be vital to certain people’s lives.

When it comes to deception, there are several different reactions people can have to a good friend deceiving them, but what approach is the most effective to maintaining harmony within the friendship? According to research, it is important to realize and confront someone when they may be deceiving you because trust is imperative to maintain a quality friendship. Deception is an element of relationships that happens due to not wanting to hurt the other person’s feelings, but in the long run learning how to detect deception is an element of developing a stronger relationship with a friend, romantic partner, boss, teachers, or an acquaintance.

When caught in a situation where someone feels the need to deceive usually there are three ways that someone responds. The first way that people choose to deceive others is through lying. Lying is when the deceiver says something that is completely untrue to what is actually took place. Telling only part of the truth and omitting the rest is the second approach. When taking this approach, the deceiver tells part of the truth, usually the aspects that are irrelevant, and then leaves out the more specific important details. The third approach is when the deceiver chooses to be completely ambiguous about what took place.

Throughout this paper it will first be discussed how people can judge deceit. Secondly it will discuss about deception detection. Last it will show how deception is perceived through truth cues. So what causes the judgment of deceit? What strategies can we use to detect deception? Are there cues involved with helping someone detect deception? Through research, these questions have been answered.

Judging deceit

In the interpersonal deception theory there are three strategies in how verbal deceit is studied. These three strategies are falsification, concealment, equivocation. Falsification occurs when creating a fiction such as deliberately acting on misrepresentation. Concealment occurs when someone is trying to hide a secret. Lastly equivocation occurs when someone is trying to dodge the issue.

In recent research the concept of judging deceit has been studied in a matter of ways. One of the ways focuses on the influences that are involved by the deceived. These influences are as such: suspicion, deception type, question type, relational familiarity and expertise on accuracy in detecting truth and deceit (Buller & Burgoon, 1994).

Research has shown that when deception occurs in a conversation the people involved should not be able to detect deception as well as observers of the conversation. This is because of the different levels of interactivity that people involved in a conversation would have from the people observing it. Those involved in a conversation are busier cognitively and behaviorally than those observing. Studies conducted are designed to compare judgments of participant-receiver and observers to test this principle (Burgoon & Dunbar, 2003).

Research on this topic conducted by Burgoon & Dunbar (2003) have found that participant-receivers judge participant-senders’ communication behavior more favorably than observers do on involvement dominance, pleasantness, and rapport/similarity/trust. Secondly, it was found that participant-receivers judge participant-senders communication style as more expected than do observers. Thirdly and most strongly supported, it was found that participant-receivers hold more favorable social judgments about participant-senders credibility than do observers. Lastly it was found that participant-receivers are less accurate at detecting deception than are observers (Burgoon & Dunbar).

Detection of deception

When being deceived by another, leakage may occur. This is when the truth will come out. The person who is being deceived may notice the deceiver doing certain things to cause them to believe they are lying. The first of these four things is the deceiver trying to attempt to control their information where they may come across as to “slick.” The second thing would be when the deceiver is becoming aroused from lying. The third thing would be when the deceiver is experiencing felt emotions. In other words when people lie they usually feel guilt, or deceit, and it shows through when they are lying. Lastly cognitive factors may occur, which is when behaviors go unintended.

Research has been conducted to focus on the social side of deception and less on the detection itself. Other studies specify that deception is common in relationships so it has become known as socially acceptable. Also past research suggest that deception is inescapable and can actually help with controlling your emotions. Moreover, the data from earlier research has all been replications of each other and they only outline the nature and function of interpersonal deception (Lippard, 1988).

Lippard (1998) conducted a study that was carried out due to the belief that there needs to be more research done. The first reason more research needed to be done is because deception needs to be tested within a larger group while including all types of deception. Secondly there needed to be a study done in more detail on recipient roles. The third reason was that it needed to be determined if situational exigencies