Trust and deception in mediated communication

Guided by interpersonal deception theory and the principle of interactivity, this investigation examined whether communication modalities differentially affect the extent to which group members develop trust or are vulnerable to manipulation and deceit, based on the degree of interactivity the modalities afford. According to the principle of interactivity, involvement and mutuality should increase as one move from text to audio and audiovisual (AV) modalities, to face-to-face (FtF) communication. Under nondeceptive circumstances, greater interactivity should elicit corresponding increases in trust and credibility; under deceptive circumstances, it should produce greater truth biases and inaccurate detection of deceit. This effect should be partly mitigated in text and audio modalities due to the presence of diagnostic deception indicators Pairs were assigned to a truthful or deceptive condition in one of three mediated conditions, or in a face-to-face condition. In the deceptive condition, one member of each pair was enlisted to deceive during the interaction. Following discussion, participants rated their communicative behavior and the credibility of the truthful or deceptive actor. Truth bias and accuracy in judging deceptive information was calculated. Results are compared to previous findings from face-to-face deception. Implications for collaborative technologies are advanced.

[1]  Lawrence R. Wheeless,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF TRUST AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SELF‐DISCLOSURE , 1977 .

[2]  P. Kalbfleisch,et al.  Deceit, distrust and the social milieu: Application of deception research in a troubled world , 1992 .

[3]  James F. Roiger,et al.  Testing Interpersonal Deception Theory: The Language of Interpersonal Deception , 1996 .

[4]  T. Levine,et al.  A probability model of accuracy in deception detection experiments , 2001 .

[5]  A. Aron,et al.  Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness , 1992 .

[6]  R. Lewicki,et al.  Trust And Distrust: New Relationships and Realities , 1998 .

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

[8]  Paul Ekman,et al.  The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit , 1988 .

[9]  Henk Sol,et al.  Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1997, HICSS 2015.

[10]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Michael A. West,et al.  Job satisfaction and teamwork: The role of supervisor support , 2001 .

[12]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling Unshared Information: The Benefits of Knowing How Access to Information Is Distributed among Group Members , 2000 .

[13]  Steven M. Drucker,et al.  The effect of communication modality on cooperation in online environments , 2000, CHI.

[14]  L. Tidwell,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time , 2002 .

[15]  Elena Rocco,et al.  Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact , 1998, CHI.

[16]  G. Stasser,et al.  Expert Roles and Information Exchange during Discussion: The Importance of Knowing Who Knows What , 1995 .

[17]  M. Lynn.  Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1996 .

[18]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics , 1994 .

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

[20]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. , 1988 .

[21]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication , 1987 .

[22]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE EFFECT OF INTERACTION BEHAVIOR ON SOURCE CREDIBILITY, HOMOPHILY, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION , 1974 .

[23]  M. Zuckerman,et al.  Anchoring in lie detection revisited , 1987 .

[24]  Malcolm R. Parks,et al.  Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side of Trust , 1986 .

[25]  C. Edgley,et al.  Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy , 1975 .

[26]  R. Riggio.  Assessment of Basic Social Skills , 1986 .

[27]  David B. Buller,et al.  Interpersonal deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. , 1991 .

[28]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Lying in everyday life. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[30]  David F. Caldwell,et al.  Interactive Cases in Organizational Behavior , 1988 .

[31]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception: IV. Effects of Suspicion on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics. , 1995 .

[32]  P. Ekman.  Why don't we catch liars ? , 1996 .

[33]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Psychology and language : an introduction to psycholinguistics , 1979 .