Effects of Veracity, Modality, and Sanctioning on Credibility Assessment During Mediated and Unmediated Interviews

An experiment examined how veracity, modality, and experimenter sanctioning of deception influenced credibility assessments made by professionals who conducted interviews face-to-face (FtF) or by video conference (VC). Participants (N = 243) completed a trivia game with a confederate who encouraged cheating. Some lies were sanctioned by the experimenter and others were unsanctioned. The professional interviewers educed a high number of confessions in the sanctioned (58%) and unsanctioned (79%) lie conditions. Overall accuracy of the interviewers ranged from 45% to 67%. Interviewers were more accurate when judging veracity FtF than in VC. Those in the deceptive VC conditions (especially sanctioned liars) were rated by interviewers as more dominant, involved, relaxed, and active than those in the FtF condition, revealing that modality affected deceivers’ demeanor.

[1]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  Testing the Interactivity Principle: Effects of Mediation, Propinquity, and Verbal and Nonverbal Modalities in Interpersonal Interaction , 2002 .

[2]  Fred E. Inbau,et al.  Criminal Interrogation and Confessions , 1967 .

[3]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Cues to deception. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  Trust and deception in mediated communication , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[5]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Does Participation Affect Deception Success? A Test of the Interactivity Principle , 2001 .

[6]  Mark A. deTurck,et al.  The Behavioral Correlates of Sanctioned and Unsanctioned Deceptive Communication , 1998 .

[7]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2007 .

[8]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Police use of nonverbal behavior as indicators of deception , 2005 .

[9]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Increasing Deception Detection Accuracy with Strategic Questioning , 2010 .

[10]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  The Prevalence of Lying in America: Three Studies of Self-Reported Lies , 2010 .

[11]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  An interactionist perspective on dominance‐submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill , 2000 .

[12]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[13]  P. Ekman,et al.  Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception †. , 1969, Psychiatry.

[14]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Accuracy of Deception Judgments , 2006, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[15]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory: Purposive and Interdependent Behavior during Deception , 2008 .

[16]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

[17]  Kent Marett,et al.  Barriers to Deceiving Other Group Members in Virtual Settings , 2013 .

[18]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model , 2006 .

[19]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interactivity in human–computer interaction: a study of credibility, understanding, and influence , 2000 .

[20]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The effect of interactivity on initial interactions: the influence of information valence and modality and information richness on computer‐mediated interaction , 2004 .

[21]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal deception: V. Accuracy in deception detection , 1994 .

[22]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  To Catch a Liar: Challenges for Research in Lie Detection Training , 2003 .

[23]  M. Zuckerman.  Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception , 1981 .

[24]  Joey F. George,et al.  The Influences of Deception and Computer-Mediation on Dyadic Negotiations , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[25]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Cognitive Biases and Nonverbal Cue Availability in Detecting Deception , 2008 .

[26]  Glenn Gamst,et al.  Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation , 2005 .

[27]  Petra Kaufmann,et al.  Experimental And Quasi Experimental Designs For Research , 2016 .

[28]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[29]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  Testing the Interactivity Model: Communication Processes, Partner Assessments, and the Quality of Collaborative Work , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  The effects of participation on the ability to judge deceit , 2003 .

[31]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages , 1996 .

[32]  Rachel Croson,et al.  SEEING AND BELIEVING: VISUAL ACCESS AND THE STRATEGIC USE OF DECEPTION , 2002 .

[33]  L. Webb,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships , 2010 .

[34]  John R. Carlson,et al.  Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2004 .

[35]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. , 2007 .

[36]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Advances in deception detection , 2010 .