This paper presents results from the first formal empirical test of Information Manipulation Theory 2 (IMT2). Specifically, two hypotheses were posited based upon three of the information manipulation (IM) propositions of IMT2. First, we predicted that a systematic rank ordering should be observable regarding the frequency of various types of information manipulation within deceptive messages; such that Gricean Quality violations are more frequent than Manner violations, which in turn occur more often than Relation violations. Second, we predicted that as the contextual problematicity of specific information units increases, so too should the likelihood of Quality violations related to the message production of these units. Two different data collections from two different institutions were conducted. Results from analyses of these data confirmed both hypotheses. Additionally, using the UCM method of unitizing and coding message data, we were able to identify the specific units of information within messages that were most likely to be falsified, thereby confirming the general premise of IMT2: the single strongest determinant of whether someone will deceive is the nature of the information they possess in working and long-term memory.
BaarsB. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
2.
BaarsB. J. (1997). In the theater of consciousness. Oxford University Press.
3.
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
4.
BaddeleyA. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press.
BaddeleyA. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press.
7.
ChangF. (2002). Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science,26(5), 609–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00079-4
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/10.1207/s15516709cog2304_6
10.
GriceH. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
11.
HauchV.Blandon-GitlinI.MasipJ.SporerS. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 307–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314556539
12.
HerrmannT. (1983). Speech and situation: A psychological conception of situated speaking.Springer-Verlag.
13.
LevineT. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14535916
14.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T. (2022). Lies and language: A context-contingent approach to verbal cues of deceit. In DehghaniM.BoydR. L. (Eds.), Handbook of language analysis in psychology (pp. 274–284). Guilford Press.
15.
McCornackS. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs,59(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376245
16.
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 Associates.
17.
McCornackS. A.MorrisonK.PaikJ. E.WisnerA.ZhuX. (2014). Information manipulation theory 2 (IMT2): A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 348–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14534656
18.
MorrisonK.McCornackS. A. (2025). Can we be honest? Cognition, intention, speech production, and the future of deception research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 45(1), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X251364005
19.
MorrisonK.McCornackS. A.DeverallT.ZhuX. (2024, November). Predicting when people will deceive: IMT2 and the Information Manipulation Probability Curve [Conference presentation]. National Communication Association 2024 Convention, New Orleans, LA, United States.
20.
NewellA.SimonH. A. (1972). Human problem solving.Prentice-Hall.
21.
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
22.
NiiH. P. (1989). Blackboard systems. In BarrA.CohenP. R.FeigenbaumE. A. (Eds.), The handbook of artificial intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 1–82). Addison-Wesley.
23.
O’KeefeB. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs,55(1), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376159
24.
O’KeefeB. J.DeliaJ. G. (1982). Impression formation and message production. In RoloffM.BergerC. (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 33–72). Sage Publications.
25.
O’KeefeD. J. (1987, November). Message description. [Conference presentation]. National Communication Association 1987 Convention, Boston, MA, USA.
26.
Sarzynska-WawerJ.PawlakA.SzymanowskaJ.HanuszK.WawerA. (2023). Truth or lie: Exploring the language of deception. PLoS ONE, 18(2), e0281179. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0281179
27.
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
28.
VrijA.GranhagP. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,1(2), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004
29.
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
30.
ZipfG. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology.Addison-Wesley.
