Information Manipulation Theory 2 is a powerful, expansive account of deception, drawing on several models and theories, with potential to revolutionize how deception is understood and researched. In this commentary, Information Manipulation Theory 2’s most important contributions are reviewed. For instance, the theory debunks the myth that deception is intrinsically more cognitive load inducing than honesty. I also offer several suggestions for the refinement, elaboration, and expansion of the theory, including the need for specification of the processing modules crucial to deception as well as the need to clarify what is meant by “efficiency.”
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242.
2.
ColwellK.Hiscock-AnismanC.MemonA.TaylorL.PrewettJ. (2008). Assessment Criteria of Indicative Deceptions (ACID): An integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 167-180.
3.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A.KirkendolS. E.WyerM. M.EpsteinJ. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979-995.
4.
EkmanP. (1992). Telling lies. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
5.
FodorJ. A. (2008). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology In AdlerJ.RipsL. (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 878-914). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
GriceP. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
McCornackS. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 1-16.
8.
McCornackS. A.MorrisonK. (2012, November). Information Manipulation Theory 2 (IMT2): Explicating the production architecture underlying deceptive discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Orlando, FL.
9.
McCornackS.MorrisonK.PaikJ. E.WisnerA. M.ZhuX. (2014). Information Manipulation Theory 2: A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4) 348-377.
10.
MohamedF. B.FaroS. H.GordonN. J.PlatekS. M.AhmanH.WilliamsJ. M. (2006). Brain mapping of deception and truth telling about an ecologically valid situation: Functional MR imaging and polygraph investigation-initial experience. Radiology, 238, 679-688.
11.
SporerS. L.SchwandtB. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-446.
12.
SporerS. L.SchwandtB. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34.
13.
StanovichK. E. (2010). Decision making and rationality in the modern world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
VrijA.GranhagP. A.PorterS. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89-121.
15.
WalczykJ. J.HarrisL. L.DuckT. K.MulayD. (2014). A social-cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activation-Decision-Construction-Action Theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 22-36.
16.
WalczykJ. J.MahoneyK. T.DoverspikeD.Griffith-RossD. A. (2009). Cognitive lie detection: Response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 33-49.
17.
WalczykJ. J.RoperK. S.SeemanE.HumphreyA. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755-774.
18.
WalczykJ. J.SchwartzJ. P.CliftonR.AdamsB.WeiM.ZhaP. (2005). Lying person to person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58, 141-170.
