The last many years have given us clear and startling insights into human cognition and the process of human speech production. Yet much of current deception research eschews such revelations. Specifically, many deception scholars continue to presume a top-down, sequential-stepwise, selection-based speech production model that begins with a singular intent-to-deceive and ends with selection between binary discourse options—truth versus lie—that then are instantiated as communicative behavior. Unfortunately, such a model lacks goodness-of-fit with theory and research in speech production, cognitive psychology, and neurolinguistics. What's more, the presumptive truth/lie binary that dominates both experimental designs and research rationales bears little resemblance to the actual discourse patterns observed when people are allowed to freely generate responses to truth-problematic contexts. In this essay, we do three things. First, we review classic and current work in speech production. Second, we revisit the intentional states propositions of a recent theory of deceptive message production—Information Manipulation Theory 2—along with illustrative discourse examples from our own data. Finally, we entreat deception scholars to move our field forward in the future to a more fruitful place.
BaarsB. J.FranklinS. (2007). An architectural model of conscious and unconscious brain functions: Global workspace theory and IDA. Neural Networks, 20(9), 955–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2007.09.013
2.
BaddeleyA. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press.
3.
BessarabovaE. (2014). The effects of culture and situational features on in-group favoritism manifested as deception. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.001
4.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K.BusligA.RoigerJ. (1996). Testing interpersonal deception theory: The language of interpersonal deception. Communication Theory, 6(3), 268–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00129.x
6.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K.WhiteC. H.EbesuA. S. (1994). Interpersonal deception: VII. Behavioral profiles of falsification, equivocation, and concealment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(4), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94134002
7.
BurgoonJ. K. (2015). When is deceptive message production more effortful than truth-telling? A baker’s dozen of moderators. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1965. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.011965
8.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. B.GuerreroL. K.AfifiW. A.FeldmanC. M. (1996). Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages. Communication Monographs, 63(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376374
9.
BurgoonJ. K.LevineT. R. (2010). Advances in deception detection. In S.W. Smith & S.R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 201–220). Sage Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483349619.n10
DellG. S.ChangF. (2014). The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(1634), 20120394. https://doi.org/10.1098rstb.2012.0394
13.
DellG. S.ChangF.GriffinZ. M. (1999). Connectionist models of language production: Lexical access and grammatical encoding. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 517–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)00014-2
14.
DillardJ. P. (1990). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In DillardJ. P. (Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41–56). Gorsuch-Scarisbrick.
15.
EkmanP. (1985). Telling lies. W. W. Norton.
16.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 32(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1969.11023575
17.
FairsA.MichelasA.DufourS.StrijkersK. (2021). The same ultra-rapid parallel brain dynamics underpin the production and perception of speech. Cerebral Cortex Communications, 2(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/texcom/tgab040
18.
GoffmanE. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231. https://doi.org10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
19.
GreeneJ. O.GeimanK. L.PruimD. E. (2019). Implications of some “obvious truths” for building theories of deceptive message formulation and production. In Docan-MorganT. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 129–143). Palgrave MacMillan.
20.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Speech Acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
21.
HancockJ.BirnholtzJ.BazarovaN. (Natalie)GuilloryJ.PerlinJ.AmosB. (2009). Butler lies: Awareness, deception and design. In Proc. ACM CHI (p. 526). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518782
22.
HauchV.SporerS. L.MichaelS. W.MeissnerC. A. (2016). Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 43(3), 283–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534974
23.
HerrmannT. (1983). Speech and situation: A psychological conception of situated speaking. Springer-Verlag.
KemmererD. (2019). From blueprints to brain maps: The status of the Lemma model in cognitive neuroscience. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1085–1116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1537498
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Massachusetts Institution of Technology.
28.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access inspeech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776
29.
LittlefieldM. M.DietzM. J.FitzgeraldD.KnudsenK. J.TonksJ. (2015). Being asked to tell an unpleasant truth about another person activates anterior insula and medial prefrontal cortex. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00553 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00553
McCornackS. A. (1997). The generation of deceptive messages: Laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception. In GreeneJ. O. (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 91–126). Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
McCornackS.MorrisonK.PaikJ.WisnerA.ZhuX. (2014). Information manipulation theory 2: A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 348–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14534656
33.
MorrisonK.FerraraM.KleinK.BissonM. (2004). “The truth shall set You free”: Exploring the difficulty in generating truthful and deceptive messages [Paper presentation]. In Annual meeting of the international communication association, New Orleans, LA, USA.
34.
MorrisonK.McCornackS. A.DeverellW. T.ZhuX. (2024). Predicting when people will deceive: IMT2 and The Information Manipulation Probability Curve [Paper presentation]. In Annual meeting of the national communication association, New Orleans, LA, USA.
35.
MorrisonK.McCornackS. A.DeverellW. T.ZhuX.TempleS. (2020, virtual conference). Where have all the liars gone? Examining situational complexity and the inclusion of false information within discourse [Paper presentation]. In Annual meeting of the national communication association.
36.
NiiH. P. (1986). The blackboard model of problem-solving and the evolution of blackboard architectures. Artificial Intelligence Magazine, 7(2), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v7i2.537
37.
NiiH. P. (1989). Blackboard systems. In BarrA.CohenP. R.FeigenbaumE. A. (Eds.), The handbook of artificial intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 1–82). Addison-Wesley.
38.
O’KeefeB. J. (1987). Models of functional communication competence: A rational alternative to strategy repertoires [Paper presentation]. In Annual meeting of the speech communication association, Boston, MA, USA.
O’KeefeB. J.LambertB. L. (1995). Managing the flow of ideas: A local management approach to message design. In BurlesonB. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 54–82). Sage.
41.
PapafragouA.GrigoroglouM. (2019). The role of conceptualization during language production: Evidence from event encoding. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1589540
SporerS. L.SchwandtB. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1
45.
SrourC.PyJ. (2022). The general theory of deception: A disruptive theory of lie production, prevention, and detection. Psychological Review, 130(5), 1289–1309. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000389
46.
StrijkersK.CostaA. (2016). On words and brains: Linking psycholinguistics with neural dynamics in speech production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(4), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1158845
47.
SuchotzkiK.VerschuereB.Van BockstaeleB.Ben-ShakharG.CrombezG. (2017). Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 143(4), 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000087
48.
TurnerR. E.EdgleyC.OlmsteadG. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.17161/STR.1808.6098
49.
VrijA. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implication for professional practice. John Wiley & Sons.
50.
VrijA.FisherR.MannS.LealS. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.003
51.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.03.001
52.
ZipfG. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley.
