Interpersonal deception theory
The theory was put forth by David Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996 to explore this idea that deception is an engaging process between receiver and deceiver.
IDT explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges.
[3] 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).
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.
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.
More recently, scientists have attempted to establish the differences between truthful and deceptive behavior using a myriad of psychological and physiological approaches.
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.
[7][13] Buller and Burgoon discount the value of highly controlled studies – usually one-way communication experiments – designed to isolate unmistakable cues that people are lying.
Buller and Burgoon wanted to emphasize that both the receiver and deceiver are active participants in the deception process.
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.
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.
[11] IDT's explanations of interpersonal deception depend on the situation in which interaction occurs and the relationship between sender and receiver.
Individuals approach deceptive exchanges with factors such as expectancy, knowledge, goals or intentions and behaviors reflecting their communication competence.
IDT also posits that factors before the interaction, combined with initial behavior, affect receiver suspicion and detection accuracy.
Emotion can be a result of deception, since a physical response occurs in the sender (usually arousal and negative affect).
[20] Leakage in deception is manifested most overtly in nonverbal signals; studies indicate that over 90 percent of emotional meaning is communicated non-verbally.
Paul Ekman’s research in facial deception has found several constants in certain expressions, with the action units relating to lip-corner pulling (AU12) and cheek-raising (AU6) qualifiers for happiness in most people.
Ekman's research has received much attention in the popular media, but it also has been heavily criticized on both experimental and theoretical grounds.
[1][22][23] Seven basic emotions are communicated through facial expression: anger, fear, sadness, joy, disgust, surprise and contempt.
Cultures have a variety of rules governing the social use of facial expression; for example, the Japanese discourage the display of negative emotions.
Humans touch one another in sexual intimacy, affiliation and understanding; in greetings and farewells; as an act of aggression, and to demonstrate dominance.
[26][28] However, Buller and Burgoon responded to this type of critique, saying the theory "was not meant to advance a single explanatory mechanism but instead to fit a broad communicative perspective on the phenomenon and to include multiple causal mechanisms that fit a general interpersonal communication account of the process.
"[30] In IDT, a crucial emphasis is placed in the aspect of interactivity to determine deception detection accuracy.
Buller and Burgoon asked participants to put themselves in the following situation: "You've been dating Pat for nearly three years and feel quite close in your relationship.
[31] The researchers listed three possible responses: lying ("I was at the library getting ready for my theory exam"), telling part of the truth while omitting important details ("Went to a party at a friend's apartment") or being intentionally vague or evasive ("Went out for a while")".
[31] These three differ, respectively, in that one creates a fiction, hides a secret, and the last dodges the issue; all falling under the umbrella of deception as defined by Buller and Burgoon.
[31] Research on the use of deception in online dating has shown that people are generally truthful about themselves with the exception of physical attributes to appear more attractive.
[33] Research suggests that while slight misrepresentations on online dating sites are quite common, major deceptions are actually rare.
[36] Conversely, those who are introverted or have high tendencies for social anxiety are especially likely to be honest about their personalities online, revealing hidden aspects of the self that they would not normally show to others offline.
