See No Evil: The Effect of Communication Medium and Motivation on Deception Detection

Abstract

The present study reports an experiment that examines the role of communication medium and liar motivation on deception detection. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two dyadic communication conditions, text-based, computer-mediated environment or face-to-face, and to one of two motivation conditions, high or low. Participants engaged in a discussion of four topics, in which one participant was deceptive during two topics and truthful during the other two. No main effect of communication medium or motivation level was observed. However, an interaction effect suggests that highly motivated liars interacting in a text-based, computermediated environment were the most successful in deceiving their partners. The implications of these results are discussed both in terms of the elimination of nonverbal cues, as well as the potential advantages to the motivated liar offered by textbased media.

Deception detection from written accounts

“…Second, accuracy rates in detecting deception from transcripts have been small (see Miller et al ., 1981; Landry & Brigham, 1992; Tye et al ., 1999). Third, a recent study examining accuracy at detecting lies and truths from written texts (not transcripts) found a very low accuracy rate (Hancock et al ., 2010).…”

“…First, whereas non‐verbal research has often examined the spontaneous detection of deception by lay observers (i.e., how untrained observers try to detect deception without the help of specific lie detection protocols or technologies), verbal deception detection research has focused on testing the usefulness of systematic credibility assessment procedures (Masip, Sporer, Garrido & Herrero, 2005; Sporer, 2004; Vrij, 2008). Thus, in many non‐verbal studies the accuracy of lay observers in judging veracity has been examined, as well as the cues observers say they use (e.g., Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991; Granhag & Strömwall, 2001; Masip, Garrido, Herrero, Antón & Alonso, 2006); however, almost no study has examined the accuracy of untrained observers in judging veracity from written texts (for an exception, see Hancock, Woodworth & Goorha, 2010, who used typed computer‐mediated messages), and to our knowledge no peer‐reviewed report has been published on the cues that readers say they use in order to assess veracity from written accounts. The present study examined lay readers’ accuracy and self‐reported use of cues in judging deceit from written messages.…”

“…However, the results derived from transcripts may not be replicated with written accounts. For example, Hancock et al . (2010) suggested that the latter permit more planning and editing than spoken language.…”

“…(2010) suggested that the latter permit more planning and editing than spoken language. This would result in fewer deception cues and lower accuracy rates among judges, particularly among the most motivated ones (Hancock et al ., 2010). 1…”

Self-Reported Gambling Problems and Digital Traces

“…41,42 Studies have considered the preferred media for deception. 43 Although electronic media afford the greater opportunity to manage self-presentation, 44,45 electronic media also leave traces that significant others can monitor. [46][47][48] In their diary study, Hancock et al 38 observed that on average about one in four social interactions involved a lie.…”