The acceptability of deception as a function of perceivers' culture, deceiver's intention, and deceiver‐deceived relationship

Seiter, John S.; Bruschke, Jon; Bai, C.

doi:10.1080/10570310209374731

Cited by 93 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A closer look at this taxonomy shows that many of the motivations hinge on the potential of gain or loss, both for egotistical and altruistic reasons. After surveying 209 participants, Seiter et al (2002) found that individuals view deception for the purpose of self-benefit as less acceptable than deception used for the intent to benefit others. Hooper and Bell (1984) reported similar results, with white lies being viewed as more acceptable than deception that is manipulative of others.…”

Section: Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extant research touches on the importance of understanding how negative leader behavior, such as deception, affects followers and the relationship between leaders and followers (Anand, Ashforth, & Joshi, 2004;Erickson, Shaw, & Agabe, 2007;Hollander, 1995). Interestingly, a number of studies have shown that in certain circumstances deception is socially acceptable (Camden, Motley, & Wilson, 1984;Hooper & Bell, 1984;Seiter, Bruschke, & Bai, 2002) and necessary (Frost, 2004). For example, white lies may preserve one's self-image or reduce conflict in a relationship (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leader Deception Influences on Leader–Member Exchange and Subordinate Organizational Commitment

Griffith

Connelly

Thiel

2011

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deception is a common and daily occurrence in organizations. Despite this, little is known about how leader deception influences follower perceptions and commitment to the leader and the broader organization. This laboratory experiment uses a low-fidelity simulation task to investigate the effects of leader deception on follower perceptions of leader-member exchange (LMX) and follower commitment to the organization. Moderating effects of financial outcomes that resulted from deception, or who gained from deception, were also tested. Results showed negative effects of leader deception on follower LMX perceptions and affective commitment. Leader financial gain worsened the effects of leader deception on LMX compared with organizational financial gain. Implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Leader Deception Influences on Leader–Member Exchange and Subordinate Organizational Commitment

Griffith

Connelly

Thiel

2011

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, Machiavelli highly praised deceit in the service of self (Bok, 1989;. The nature of lying is two-pronged, and how we feel about deception depends on the reason for telling the lie (Seiter, Bruschke, & Bai, 2002). Most lies are told for psychological reasons, and people do not feel bad about telling these kinds of lies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Vrij

Granhag

Porter

2010

Psychol Sci Public Interest

380

356

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such guidance in the present article.The article consists of two parts. The first section focuses on pitfalls to avoid and outlines the major factors that lead to failures in catching liars. Sixteen reasons are clustered into three categories: (a) a lack of motivation to detect lies (because accepting a fabrication might sometimes be more tolerable or pleasant than understanding the truth), (b) difficulties associated with lie detection, and (c) common errors made by lie detectors. We will argue that the absence of nonverbal and verbal cues uniquely related to deceit (akin Pinocchio's growing nose), the existence of typically small differences between truth tellers and liars, and the fact that liars actively try to appear credible contribute to making lie detection a difficult task. Other factors that add to difficulty is that lies are often embedded in truths, that lie detectors often do not receive adequate feedback about their judgments and therefore cannot learn from their mistakes, and that some methods to detect lies violate conversation rules and are therefore difficult to apply in real life. The final factor to be discussed in this category is that some people are just very good liars.The common errors lie detectors make that we have identified are examining the wrong cues (in part, because professionals are taught these wrong cues); placing too great an emphasis on nonverbal cues (in part, because training encourages such emphasis); tending to too-readily interpret certain behaviors, particularly signs of nervousness, as diagnostic of deception; placing too great an emphasis on simplistic rules of thumb; and neglecting inter-and intrapersonal differences. We also discuss two final errors: that many interview strategies advocated by police manuals can impair lie detection, and that professionals tend to overestimate their ability to detect deceit.The second section of this article discusses opportunities for maximizing one's chances of detecting lies and elaborates strategies for improving one's lie-detection skills. Within this section, we first provide five recommendations for avoiding the common errors in detecting lies that we identified earlier in the article. Next, we discuss a relatively recent wave of innovative lie-detection research that goes one step further and introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and t...

show abstract

“…Lies perceived as having a selfish intent and severe personal consequences received very harsh evaluations, highlighting the importance of inferred motive as a primary element considered in the sensemaking and evaluation process of deception (e.g. Goffman, 1967;Seiter et al, 2002).…”

Section: Making Sense Of Coworker Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to making sense of deception, interpersonal communication research indicates that people rely on such elements as they specifically relate to the act's degree of truthfulness (Bavelas, Black, Chovil, & Mullet, 1990;Metts, 1989), its consequences (Bryant, 2008;Knapp & Comadena, 1979) or importance (Jang et al, 2002;McCornack & Levine, 1990), the liar's intent or motives (DePaulo et al, 1983;Kowalski et al, 2003;Vangelisti & Young, 2000), its intended beneficiary (Bryant, 2008;DePaulo & Kashy, 1998;Hample, 1980;Lindskold & Walters, 1983;Seiter, Bruschke, & Chunsheng, 2002), and the degree to which it indicates relational devaluation (Kowalski et al, 2003 ). Deceived individuals might therefore behave very differently depending on whether they perceive the deception as a malicious and outright fabrication with serious implications or a trivial and harmless fib.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%