This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Burgoon, J. K. Articles by Buslig, A. L. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Burgoon, J. K. Articles by Buslig, A. L. S. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Role of Conversational Involvement in Deceptive Interpersonal Interactions

University of Arizona

David B. Buller

AMC Cancer Research Center, Denver

Cindy H. White

University of Colorado, Boulder

Walid Afifi

Penn State University

Aileen L. S. Buslig

Arizona State University

Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) postulates that interactive deception differs from noninteractive deception due to combined influences of deceiver goals and social skills, mutual influence processes between sender and receiver, feedback, and interaction dynamics. An experiment tested hypotheses that (a) interactive deception displays differ from truthful ones only at the outset of interaction and approximate truthful displays over time, (b) displays are moderated by deceiver social skills, (c) deceivers adapt to receiver communication with reciprocal or compensatory displays, (d) low involvement by receivers conveys negative feedback that instigates more behavioral adjustments by deceivers than does high involvement, and (e) receivers’ postinteraction judgments of deceivers are directly related to deceiver behavioral displays. An experiment in which senders alternated between telling the truth and deceiving, and partners varied their own level of involvement, produced supportive results that have implications for the stability of, and causal mechanisms underlying, deception displays and interpersonal communication generally.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. K. Burgoon and T. Qin The Dynamic Nature of Deceptive Verbal Communication Journal of Language and Social Psychology, March 1, 2006; 25(1): 76 - 96. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Hartwig, P. A. Granhag, L. A. Stromwall, and A. Vrij Police Officers' Lie Detection Accuracy: Interrogating Freely Versus Observing Video Police Quarterly, December 1, 2004; 7(4): 429 - 456. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. O'Sullivan The Fundamental Attribution Error in Detecting Deception: The Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Effect Pers Soc Psychol Bull, October 1, 2003; 29(10): 1316 - 1327. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. J. Kalbfleisch Deceptive Message Intent and Relational Quality Journal of Language and Social Psychology, March 1, 2001; 20(1-2): 214 - 230. [Abstract] [PDF]