Interpersonal deception theory
(IDT) is one of a number of theories that attempts to explain how individuals handle actual (or perceived) deception at the conscious or subconscious level while engaged in face-to-face communication. The theory was put forth by David B. Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996 to explore this idea that deception is an engaging process between receiver and deceiver. IDT assumes that communication is not static; it is influenced by personal goals and the meaning of the interaction as it unfolds. IDT is no different from other forms of communication since all forms of communication are adaptive in nature.Infante D.A, Rancer A.S, Avtgis T.A (2010) Contemporary Communication Theory. 8. 241-246 The sender's overt (and covert) communications are affected by the overt and covert communications of the receiver, and vice versa. IDT explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges.
Hence, it is safe to say that IDT can also be referred to as a game of moves and countermoves by the deceiver and the deceived. Burgoon J.K, Buller D.B (1994). Interpersonal Deception:III.Effects of Deceit on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 18(2)
Intentional deception requires greater cognitive exertion than truthful communication, regardless of whether the sender attempts falsification (lying), concealment (omitting material facts) or equivocation (skirting issues by changing the subject or responding indirectly).
Theoretical perspective IDT views deception through the lens of interpersonal communication, considering deception as an interactive process between sender and receiver. In contrast with previous studies of deception (which focused on the sender and receiver individually), IDT focuses on the dyadic and relational nature of deceptive communication. Behaviors by sender and receiver are dynamic, multifunctional, multidimensional and multi-modal.
Dyadic communication is communication between two people; a dyad is a group of two people between whom messages are sent and received. Relational communication is communication in which meaning is created by two people simultaneously filling the roles of sender and receiver. Dialogic activity is the active communicative language of the sender and receiver, each relying upon the other in the exchange. "Both individuals within the communicative situation are actively participating in strategies to obtain or achieve goals set by themselves. The decision to actively deceive or not, is not that of a passive nature, it is done with intent by both individuals during the conversation".
In psychotherapy and psychological counseling, dyadic, relational and dialogic activity between therapist and patient relies on honest, open communication if the patient is to recover and be capable of healthier relationships. Deception uses the same theoretical framework in reverse; the communication of one participant is deliberately false.
History Current research literature documents well that human beings are poor detectors of deception. Research reveals that accuracy rates of people's ability to tell truth from deception are only a little above chance (54%). Concerningly, observers perform slightly worse given only visual information (52% accuracy) and better when they can hear (but not see) the target person (63%), While experts are more confident than laypersons, they are not more accurate.
Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) attempts to explain the manner in which individuals engaged in face-to-face communication deal with actual or perceived deception on the conscious and subconscious levels. IDT proposes that the majority of individuals overestimate their ability to detect deception. In some cultures, various means of deception are acceptable while other forms are not. Acceptance of deception can be found in language terms that classify, rationalize or condemn, such behavior. Deception that may be considered a simple white lie to save feelings may be deemed socially acceptable, while deception used to gain certain advantages can be determined to be ethically questionable. It has been estimated that "deception and suspected deception arise in at least one quarter of all conversations".
Interpersonal deception detection between partners is difficult unless a partner tells an outright lie or contradicts something the other partner knows is true. While it is difficult to deceive a person over a long period of time, deception often occurs in day-to-day conversations between relational partners. Maintaining a deception over time is difficult because it places a significant cognitive load on the deceiver. The deceiver must recall previous statements so that their story remains consistent and believable. As a result, deceivers often leak important information both verbally and nonverbally.
In the early twentieth century, 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. Freud also noted other nonverbal cues, such as drumming one's fingers when telling a lie. More recently, scientists have attempted to establish the differences between truthful and deceptive behavior using a myriad of psychological and physiological approaches. In 1969, Ekman and Friesen used straightforward observation methods to determine deceptive non-verbal leakage cues, while more recently Rosenfeldet et al. used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect differences between honest and deceptive responses.
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 in 1996 by 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."DePaulo, B.M., Zukerman, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980, Spring). "Humans As Lie Detectors". Journal of Communication, 30 (2) 129–139. Additionally, research has shown that deception and suspected deception occurs in at least one quarter of all conversations.
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 interaction communicative process. In other words, deception is an interpersonal communication method that required the active participation of both the deceiver and receiver. Buller and Burgoon wanted to emphasize that both the receiver and deceiver are active participants in the deception process. Both are constantly engaged in conscious and unconscious behaviors that relay their true intentions. Buller and Burgoon initially based their theory of IPD on the four-factor model of deception developed by social psychologist Miron Zuckerman, who argues that the four components of deceit inevitably cause cognitive overload and therefore leakage. Zuckerman's four factors include the attempt to control information, which fosters behavior that can come across as too practiced, followed by physiological arousal as a result of deception. This arousal then leads to the third factor, felt emotions, which are usually guilt and anxiety, which can become noticeable to an observer. Additionally, the many cognitive factors and mental gymnastics that are going on during a deception often lead to nonverbal leakage cues, such as increased blinking and a higher pitched voice.
Propositions IDT's model of interpersonal deception has 21 verifiable propositions. Based on assumptions of interpersonal communication and deception, each proposition can generate a testable hypothesis. Although some propositions originated in IDT, many are derived from earlier research. The propositions attempt to explain the cognition and behavior of sender and receiver during the process of deception, from before interaction through interaction to the outcome after interaction.
Context and relationship IDT's explanations of interpersonal deception depend on the situation in which interaction occurs and the relationship between sender and receiver. 1. Sender and receiver cognition and behaviors vary, since deceptive communication contexts vary in access to social cues, immediacy, relationship, conversational demands and spontaneity. 2. In deceptive interchanges, sender and receiver cognition and behaviors vary; relationships vary in familiarity (informational and behavioral) and valence.
Other factors before interaction Individuals approach deceptive exchanges with factors such as expectancy, knowledge, goals or intentions and behaviors reflecting their communication competence. IDT posits that these factors influence the deceptive exchange. 3. Compared with truth-tellers, deceivers engage in more strategic activity designed to manage information, behavior and image and have more nonstrategic arousal cues, negative and muted affect and non-involvement.
Effects on sender's deception and fear of detection IDT posits that factors before the interaction influence the sender's deception and fear of detection. 4. Context moderates deception; increased interaction produces greater strategic activity (information, behavior and image management) and reduced nonstrategic activity (arousal or muted affect) over time. 5. Initial expectations of honesty are related to the degree of interactivity and the relationship between sender and receiver. 6. Deceivers' fear of detection and associated strategic activity are inversely related to expectations of honesty, a function of context and relationship quality. 7. Goals and motivation influence behavior. 8. As receivers' informational, behavioral and relational familiarity increase, deceivers have a greater fear of detection and exhibit more strategic information, behavior and image management and nonstrategic leakage behavior. 9. Skilled senders convey a truthful demeanor, with more strategic behavior and less nonstrategic leakage, better than unskilled ones.
Effects on receiver cognition IDT also posits that factors before the interaction, combined with initial behavior, affect receiver suspicion and detection accuracy. 10. Receiver judgment of sender credibility is related to receiver truth biases, context interactivity, sender encoding skills and sender deviation from expected patterns. 11. Detection accuracy is related to receiver truth biases, context interactivity, sender encoding skills, informational and behavioral familiarity, receiver decoding skills and sender deviation from expected patterns.
Interaction patterns IDT describes receiver suspicion and sender reaction. 12. Receiver suspicion is displayed in a combination of strategic and nonstrategic behavior. 13. Senders perceive suspicion. 14. Suspicion, perceived or actual, increases senders' strategic and nonstrategic behavior. 15. Deception and suspicion displays change over time. 16. Reciprocity is the predominant interaction pattern between senders and receivers during interpersonal deception.
Outcomes