Where humans have been found to detect lies or deception only at the rate of chance in offline face-to-face communication (F2F), computer-mediated communication (CMC) online can elicit higher rates of trust and sharing of personal information than F2F. How do levels of trust and empathetic personality traits like perspective taking (PT) relate to deception detection in real-time CMC compared to F2F? A between groups correlational design (N = 40) demonstrated that, through a paired deceptive conversation task with confederates, levels of participant trust could predict accurate detection online but not offline. Second, participant PT abilities could not predict accurate detection in either conversation medium. Finally, this study found that conversation medium also had no effect on deception detection. This study finds support for the effects of the Truth Bias and online disinhibition in deception, and further implications in law enforcement are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GreenMC, CarpenterJM. (2011) Trust, deception and identity on the internet. In BirchmeierZ, Dietz-UhlerB, StasserG, eds. Strategic uses of social technology: an interactive perspective of social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 40–62.
2.
HancockJT, Thom-SantelliT, RitchieT. (2004) Deception and design: the impact of communication technology on lying behaviour. Vienna, Austria: CHI.
3.
JianLC, BazarovaNN, HancockJT. From perception to behaviour: disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 2013; 40:125–143.
4.
ChaoC, TaoY. Human flesh search: a supplemental review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 2012; 15:350–356.
5.
CouchD, LiamputtongP, PittsM. What are the real and perceived risks and dangers of online dating? Perspectives from online daters. Health, Risk & Society, 2012; 14:7–8.
6.
DingH. Grassroots emergency health risk communication and transmedia public participation: H1N1 flu, travelers from epicenters, and cyber vigilantism. Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 2012; 3:15–35.
7.
WrightRT, JensenML, BennetT, et al.Influencing technique in phishing attacks: an examination of vulnerability and resistance. Information Systems Research, 2014; 25:385–400.
8.
OttM, ChoiY, CardieC, et al. (2011) Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 309–319.
9.
TalbotS. Evaluating the ability of law enforcement and mental health professionals to detect deception. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 2012; 73:1832.
10.
TomaCL, HancockJT. What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communications, 2012; 62:78–79.
11.
HancockJT, GuilloryJ. (2015) Deception with technology. In SundarSS ed. The handbook of the psychology of communication technology. Chichester, United Kingdom, Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 270–289.
12.
SanchezT. (2011) To catch a liar: a signal detection analysis of personality and lie detection [poster]. In 39th Annual Western Pennsylvania Undergraduate Psychology Conference. New Wilmington, PA, pp 1–5.
13.
HancockJ, GeeK, CiaccioK, et al. (2008) I'm sad you're sad: emotional contagion in CMC. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 295–298.
14.
HancockJT, WoodworthMT, GoorhaS. See no evil: the effect of communication medium and motivation on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2010; 19:327–343.
15.
HancockJ, BirnholtzJ, BazarovaN, et al. (2009) Butler lies: awareness, deception and design. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Boston, MA, New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 517–526.
16.
BirnholtzJ, GuilloryJ, HancockJ, et al. (2010) “On my way”: deceptive texting and interpersonal awareness narratives. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 1–4.
17.
EllisonNB, HancockJT. Profile as promise: honest and deceptive signals in online dating. Security & Privacy, 2013; 11:84–88.
18.
FioreAT, DonathJS. Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself? Computer-Human Interaction. 2005; New York: ACM, 1371–1374.
19.
GasparJP, SchweitzerME. The emotion deception model: a review of deception in negotiation and the role of emotion in deception. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2013; 6:160–179.
20.
OlekalnsM, SmithPL. Mutually dependent: power, trust, affect and the use of deception in negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 2009; 85:347–365.
21.
ReynoldsL, SmithME, BirnholtzJP, et al. (2013) Butler lies from both sides: actions and perceptions of unavailability management in texting. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 769–778.
22.
TomaC, HancockJT, EllisonNB. Separating fact from fiction: an examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2008; 34:1023–1036.
23.
ZhouL, SungY, ZhangD. Deception performance in online group negotiation and decision making: the effects of deception experience and deception skill. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2013; 22:153–172.
24.
SulerJ. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2004; 7:321–326.
25.
HancockJT, CurryLE, GoorhaS, et al.On lying and being lied to: a linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 2008; 45:1–23.
26.
HancockJ. (2007) Digital deception. In JoinsonA, McKennaK, PostmesT, ReipsU, eds. The Oxford handbook of internet psychology. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, pp. 289–329.
27.
Lapidot-LeflerN, BarakA. Effects of anonymity, invisibility and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behaviour, 2012; 28:434–443.
28.
ZhouL, ZhangD. (2004) Can online behaviour unveil deceivers? An exploratory investigation of deception in instant messaging. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
29.
RockmanmKW, NorthcraftGB. To be or not to be trusted: the influence of Media Richness Theory on defection and deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2008; 107:106–122.
30.
BurgoonJK, BlairJP, StromRE. Cognitive biases and non-verbal cue availability in detecting deception. Human Communication Research, 2008; 34:572–599.
31.
ColwellK, Hiscock-AnismanCK, MemonA, et al.Assessment criteria indicative of deception (ACID): an integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2007; 4:167–180.
32.
VrijA. Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2004; 9:159–181.
33.
PanasitiMS, PavoneEF, MerlaA, et al.Situational and dispositional determinants of intentional deceiving. PLoS One, 2011; 6:1.
34.
WolpeRB, FosterKR, LanglebenDD. Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2005; 5:39–49.
35.
BurgoonJK, StonerGM, BonitoJA, et al. (2003) Trust and deception in mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, HI. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press pp. 1–11.
36.
Ben-NerA, HalldorssonF. Trusting and trustworthiness: what are they, how to measure them, and what affects them. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2010; 31:64–79.
37.
TomaCL, HancockJT. (2010) Reading between the lines: linguistic cues to deception in online dating profiles. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Georgia: ACM, pp. 5–8.
38.
PerisR, GimenoMA, PinazoD, et al.Online chat rooms: virtual spaces of interaction for socially oriented people. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2002; 5:43–51.
39.
BoyleAM, O'SullivanLF. Staying connected: computer-mediated and face-to-face communication in college students' dating relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 2016; 19:299–307.
40.
BakJY, KimS, OhA. (2012) Self-disclosure and relationship strength in twitter conversations. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeju, Korea: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 60–64.
41.
WhittyMT, JoinsonAN. (2009) Truth, lies and trust on the internet. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
42.
ForgasJP. She doesn't look like a philosopher…? Affective influences on the halo effect in impression formation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2011; 41:812–817.
43.
YamagishiT, YamagishiM. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 1994; 18:129–166.
44.
GuerinB. Replacing catharsis and uncertainty reduction theories with descriptions of historical and social context. Review of General Psychology, 2001; 5:44–61.
45.
StreetCH, RichardsonDC. Descartes versus Spinoza: truth, uncertainty, and bias. Social Cognition, 2015; 33:227–239.
46.
FischerP. Selective exposure, decision uncertainty and cognitive economy: a new theoretical perspective on confirmatory information search. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2011; 5:751–762.
47.
GranhagPA, AnderssonLO, StromwallLA, et al.Imprisoned knowledge: criminals' beliefs about deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2004; 9:103–119.
48.
EdelsteinRS, LutenTL, EkamnP, et al.Detecting lies in children and adults. Law and Human Behaviour, 2006; 30:1–10.
49.
AamondtMG. Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner, 2006; 15:6–11.
50.
KuG, WangCS, GalinskyAD. The promise and perversity of perspective-taking in organisations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015; 35:79–102.
51.
MorinA. Self-recognition, theory of mind and self-awareness: what side are you on?. Laterality, 2011; 16:367–383.
52.
AbbateCS, IsgroA, WicklundRA. A field experiment on perspective-taking, helping and self-awareness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2006; 28:283–287.
53.
GalinskyAD, WangCS, KuG. Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008; 95:404–419.
54.
YamagishiT. The provisioning of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986; 51:110–116.
55.
MontoroA, ShihP, RomanM, et al.Spanish adaptation of Yamagishi General Trust Scale. Anales de Psicologia, 2014; 30:303–308.
56.
DavisMH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1980; 10:85.
57.
CohenTR. Moral emotions and unethical bargaining: the differential effects of empathy and perspective taking in deterring deceitful negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 2010; 94:569–579.
58.
GalinskyAD, MadduxWW, GilinD, et al.Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: the differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 2008; 19:378–384.
59.
SkorinkolJL, LaurentS, BountressK, et al.Effects of perspective taking on courtroom decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2014; 44:303–318.
60.
ZebrowitzLA, FranklinRG. The attractiveness halo effect and the babyface stereotype in older and younger adults: similarities, own-age accentuation, and older adult positivity effects. Experimental Aging Research, 2014; 40:375–393.
61.
GendollaGHE, WicklundRA. Self-focused attention, perspective-taking and false consensus. Social Psychology, 2009; 40:66–72.
62.
JohnsonAK, BarnaczA, ConstantinoP, et al.Female deception detection as a function of commitment and self-awareness. Personality and Individual Differences, 2004; 37:1417–1424.
63.
MalcolmS, KeenanJP. My right I: deception detection and hemispheric differences in self-awareness. Social Behavior and Personality, 2003; 31:767–771.
64.
LittlewortGC, BartlettMS, LeeK. Automatic coding of facial expressions displayed during posed and genuine pain. Image and Vision Computing, 2009; 27:1741–1844.
65.
HornD, OlsonJ, KarasikL. (2002) The effects of spatial and temporal video distortion on lie detection performance. In Proceedings of CHI 2002: Extended Abstracts. New York: ACM, pp. 714–715.
66.
BondCF, DePauloBM. Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 2008; 134:477–492.
67.
BazarovaNN, YuanC. Expertise recognition and influence in intercultural groups: differences between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2013; 18:437–453.
68.
ClementsJA, ClementsCS. Confident deception. The role of justification. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, 2013; 3:178–183.
69.
TwitchellDP, AdkinsM, NunamakerJFJr., et al. (2004) Using Speech Act Theory to model conversations for automated classification and retrieval. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference Language Action Perspective Communication Modelling (LAP 2004). New Brunswick, NJ: LAP, pp. 121–130.
70.
LowmasterSE, MoreyLC. Predicting law enforcement officer job performance with the personality assessment inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 2012; 94:54–261.
71.
SurretteMA, EbertJM, WillisMA, et al.Personality of law enforcement officials: a comparison of law enforcement officials' personality profiles based on size of community. Public Personnel Management, 2003; 32:279.
72.
LovelandJM, LounsburyJW, ParkS, et al.Are salespeople born or made? Biology, personality, and the career satisfaction of salespeople. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2015; 30:233–240.
73.
AntheunisML, SchoutenAP, ValkenburgPM, et al.Interactive uncertainty reduction strategies and verbal affection in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 2012; 39:757–780.
