The relative impact of violation type and lie severity on judgments of message deceitfulness

Levine, Timothy R.; Asada, Kelli Jean K.; Lindsey, Lisa L. Massi

doi:10.1080/08824090309388819

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Violations of quantity are judged as less severe than violations of quality (Jacobs, Dawson, & Brashers, 1996;McCornack et al, 1992). This is confirmed in research on negotiation and judgment and decision making that has found that omissions are viewed as less deceptive and more socially acceptable than commissions (Ritov & Baron, 1990;Spranca, Minsk, & Baron, 1991;Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004;Van Swol et al, 2012; for exception see, Levine, Asada, & Massi, 2003). For example, DeScioli, Christner, and Kurzban (2011) found participants were more likely to use omission to deceive than commission when their behavior had the potential to be punished because participants anticipated less severe punishments with omission.…”

Section: Communication Medium and Type Of Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Deception, Detection, Demeanor, and Truth Bias in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication

Swol

Braun

Kolb

2013

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an ultimatum game, participants were randomly assigned to the role of allocator or recipient and to interact face-to-face (FtF) or over computer text chat (computermediated communication [CMC]). The allocator was given money to divide. The recipient was unaware of the amount given, so the allocator could deceive the recipient. Perception of the allocator having a dishonest demeanor increased recipient suspicion of deception, but reduced detection accuracy for truths. Demeanor cues did not help detect deception. Recipients were better at detecting lies CMC than FtF. Overall, truth bias did not differ between CMC and FtF. Rates of deception did not differ between CMC and FtF, but type of deception marginally differed. There was more deceptive omission used in FtF and more deceptive commission (bald-faced lies) used in CMC. Results are discussed in terms of demeanor and truth bias.Most people are bad at detecting deception in deception experiments and have detection rates slightly above chance (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). This article uses an ultimatum game to examine how sender demeanor and truth bias affect suspicion and

show abstract

Section: Communication Medium and Type Of Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Deception, Detection, Demeanor, and Truth Bias in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication

Swol

Braun

Kolb

2013

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A message is either intended to mislead another or it is not. Further, when judgments of deceit are scaled on a continuum, such judgments likely confound perceptions of deceptive intent, the proportion of truthful message content, confidence in judgment, and perceived lie severity (Levine, 2001;Levine, Asada, & Massi, 2003). [2] Readers might object to H6c on the grounds that it specifies a null hypothesis, and that null hypotheses cannot be adequately assessed with traditional null hypothesis significance testing.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model

Levine

Kim

Park

et al. 2006

Communication Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provided the first empirical test of point predictions made by the Park-Levine probability model of deception detection accuracy. Participants viewed a series of interviews containing truthful answers, unsanctioned, high-stakes lies, or some combination of both. One randomly selected set of participants (n0/50) made judgments where the probability that each message was honest was P(H)0/.50. Accuracy judgments in this condition were used to generate point predictions generated from the model and tested against the results from a second set of data (n 0/413). Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight base-rate conditions where the probability that a message was honest systematically varied from 0.00 to 1.00. Consistent with the veracity effect, participants in P(H)0/.50 condition were significantly more likely to judge messages as truths than as lies, and consequently truths (67%) were identified with greater accuracy than lies (34%). As predicted by the model, overall accuracy was a linear function of message veracity base-rate, the base-rate induction explained 24% of the variance in accuracy scores, and, on average, raw accuracy scores for specific conditions were predicted to within approximately9/2.6%. The findings show that specific deception detection accuracy scores can be precisely predicted with the Park-Levine model.

show abstract

“…Experimental research by Levine, Asada, and Lindsey (2003) suggests that the type of deceptive message communicated may impact whether people perceive it as constituting deception. Specifically, they found that false information (termed quality violations) was consistently perceived as deceptive.…”

Section: Deception and Deception Typementioning

confidence: 98%

Deceivers and Emotion: The Relationships Among Deceptive Message Type, Relational Qualities, and Guilt and Shame

Horan

Dillow

2009

Atlantic Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has identified emotions as key components of the deception process . Yet, examining emotions in conjunction with deception has been branded an underresearched area (Seiter & Bruschke, 2007). The goal of this study was to discover if relational qualities (commitment and satisfaction) and the type of deceptive message communicated (lie, evasion, overstatement, concealment, or collusion) related to feelings of guilt and shame following deception. Participants were asked to recall the most recent time they deceived their romantic partner, describe the lie, and complete relational quality and emotional response measures. Results indicate that the type of deceptive message communicated was not related to relational qualities. Further, feelings of guilt and shame did not differ based on type of deception. However, results indicate positive relationships between the emotional experiences of guilt and shame and relational qualities of commitment and satisfaction. Implications, limitations, and future research are discussed.Relational partners have a number of behavioral expectations of one another. Of these, honesty is particularly salient. Prior to entering into a relationship, honesty has been identified as a desirable and attractive partner characteristic (

show abstract

The relative impact of violation type and lie severity on judgments of message deceitfulness

Cited by 15 publications

References 16 publications

Deception, Detection, Demeanor, and Truth Bias in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication

Deception, Detection, Demeanor, and Truth Bias in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication

Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model

Deceivers and Emotion: The Relationships Among Deceptive Message Type, Relational Qualities, and Guilt and Shame

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About