A Reply From the Heart Who Are Sparks and Greene and Why Are They Saying All These Horrible Things?

Burgoon, Judee K.; Poire, Beth A. Le

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00561.x

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A related issue pertains to the interval of physiological assessments. Researchers argue that it is important to select an appropriate frame in which to assess physiology (e.g., Burgoon & Le Poire, 1992), stating that: “Measurement windows that are too narrow may result in oversampling, whereas windows that are too wide can mask important variation in the signal being measured” (Floyd, 2004, p. 304). Thus, it may have been necessary to assess participants' blood pressure and heart rate multiple times to reveal changes associated with recalling DAMs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is It Worth Lying For? Physiological and Emotional Implications of Recalling Deceptive Affection

Horan¹,

Booth‐Butterfield²

2010

Human Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This investigation explored the risks of affectionate expressions in romantic relationships by examining the physiological and emotional implications of recalled expressed deceptive affectionate messages to romantic partners. Ninety-nine participants were assigned to one of three conditions: deceptive affection, honest affection, or plans with a friend (control). Results indicate that individuals' blood pressure and heart rates are not differentially influenced when recalling deceptive affection compared to honest affection or common communication. Similarly, there were no differences in feelings of guilt and shame based on the motive for the deceptive expression. Posthoc analyses compared affectionate conditions (deceptive and honest) to the control condition and revealed no significant physiological differences. Implications for theory, methodological comparisons, and future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is It Worth Lying For? Physiological and Emotional Implications of Recalling Deceptive Affection

Horan¹,

Booth‐Butterfield²

2010

Human Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the results of the present study, suggestions for future communication research and pedagogical applications will be offered. Andersen, Guerrero, Buller, & Jorgensen, 1998), displays of nonverbal behavior (Burgoon & Le Poire, 1992;Cappella, 1997;Cappella & Greene, 1984;Greene & Sparks, 1992), and manifestations of communication-related anxiety (Patterson & Kitts, 1997), have been linked to autonomic arousal. Despite its considerable heuristic value, Le Poire and Burgoon (1996) argue that scholars must differentiate the form of arousal most applicable to the communication theories they intend to test.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Public speaking arousal as a function of anticipatory activation and autonomic reactivity

Behnke

Sawyer

2001

Communication Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Valid indicators of nervous behavior include random movements and self-manipulations (Burgoon, Kelley, Newton, & Keely-Dyreson, 1989;Burgoon & LePoire, 1992;Davis & Hadiks, 1995;DeTurck & Miller, 1985). ' Two theoretical frameworks, namely, the attempted control framework and the cognitive load framework, are often used to explain the actual relationship between movements and deception.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A possible explanation of why observers associate deception with an increase in movements is that they assume that liars are nervous and that they will behave nervously when lying (Knapp, Hart, & Dennis, 1974;Kohnken, 1989;Kraut & Poe, 1980). Valid indicators of nervous behavior include random movements and self-manipulations (Burgoon, Kelley, Newton, & Keely-Dyreson, 1989;Burgoon & LePoire, 1992;Davis & Hadiks, 1995;DeTurck & Miller, 1985). ' Two theoretical frameworks, namely, the attempted control framework and the cognitive load framework, are often used to explain the actual relationship between movements and deception.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Insight Into Behavior Displayed During Deception

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research suggests that liars are not aware that they tend to decrease their movements during deception. Moreover, it is unclear how liars will behave if someone informs them about their behavioral rigidity during deception, and to what extent several processes (tension, attempted behavioral control, and cognitive effort) are associated with deception. In the present experiment, subjects were interviewed twice. During one interview, they told the truth, and during the other interview, they lied. In the information‐present condition, before both interviews, subjects were told that deception is usually associated with a decrease in movements. In the information‐absent condition, no information was given. The results revealed that whereas subjects believed that they increased their movements during deception, a decrease in movements, in fact, occurred. Provision of information about deceptive behavior had no effect. The results also showed that a decrease in movements was associated with attempted control and cognitive load processes, and occurred independently from the tension experienced by deceivers.

show abstract

A Reply From the Heart Who Are Sparks and Greene and Why Are They Saying All These Horrible Things?

Cited by 11 publications

References 9 publications

Is It Worth Lying For? Physiological and Emotional Implications of Recalling Deceptive Affection

Is It Worth Lying For? Physiological and Emotional Implications of Recalling Deceptive Affection

Public speaking arousal as a function of anticipatory activation and autonomic reactivity

Insight Into Behavior Displayed During Deception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About