Interpersonal deception theory
Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT), introduced by David Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996, focuses on the complexities of how people deceive one another during interactive communication. This theory emphasizes that deception is not merely about delivering false information but involves a dynamic exchange where individuals react and adapt their communication strategies based on real-time feedback. IDT classifies deception into three main types: falsification (making untrue statements), concealment (hiding the truth), and equivocation (avoiding clear statements).
The theory also explores the cognitive and emotional challenges faced by deceivers, highlighting how cognitive overload can lead to unintentional behavioral "leakage" that might reveal their deceit. Factors such as the relationship between communicators, the context of the conversation, and individual communication skills influence the effectiveness and detection of deceptive behaviors. Additionally, the concept of "truth bias" suggests that people often assume honesty in interpersonal communication, complicating the identification of deception. Overall, IDT has significant implications for understanding communication in various contexts, including face-to-face interactions and digital communications.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Interpersonal deception theory
Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) is a theory of communication that was first introduced in 1996 by researchers David Buller and Judee Burgoon. Through their research, they hoped to provide more insight into how and why people deceive others. Specifically, they studied interactive communication—when one person is not simply delivering information to another, but when he or she is actively exchanging information face-to-face and reacting to another person. The interpersonal deception theory seeks to identify the types of deception, their purposes, and the behaviors, both conscious and unconscious, that commonly indicate deception is occurring. The theory is based on the fact that humans are constantly monitoring, changing, and adapting their behavior based on the feedback they are receiving—on a verbal and nonverbal level—from the person with whom they are interacting.
Background
In general, research shows that most people believe they are better at identifying deception than they really are. When people are suspicious, they will often search for nonverbal cues such as a lack of eye contact or nervous laughter that might indicate they are being deceived. However, subsequent research has shown that these cues do not reliably indicate sincerity or deception. According to Em Griffin, research has shown that people, when they are in a research setting, are often no more than 50 to 60 percent accurate in identifying deception—relatively the same odds as tossing a coin. However, this does not mean that certain behaviors indicating deception are not occurring.
In interpersonal communication, research shows that deception requires a demanding level of mental effort and strategy. The deceiver must not just create the falsehood but also speak in a sincere manner, monitor his or her behavior, plan for follow-up questions and responses, and plan for the worst-case scenario if the deception fails. While this is all going on simultaneously, the brain may enter what is referred to as "cognitive overload." If this occurs, at least one aspect of behavior will become unconscious—essentially, go into autopilot. This automatic behavior is called "leakage" when it refers to a behavior the individual is unaware of and indicates an internal state that the individual wishes to keep hidden.
Researchers Buller and Burgoon initially based their theory on the four-factor model of deception developed by social psychologist Miron Zuckerman, who argues that the four components of deceit inevitably cause cognitive overload and therefore leakage. Zuckerman's four factors include the attempt to control information, which fosters behavior that can come across as too practiced, followed by physiological arousal as a result of the lie. This arousal then leads to the third factor, felt emotions, which are usually guilt and anxiety, which can become obvious. Finally, the many cognitive factors and mental gymnastics that are going on during a lie often lead to nonverbal leakage cues, such as increased blinking and a higher pitch to the voice. Sigmund Freud also noted these nonverbal cues in the early nineteenth century, such as drumming one's fingers when telling a lie.
However, Buller and Burgoon developed their theory after identifying flaws in the previous methods of deception research. In most cases, the people in these experiments were receiving one-way communication, and experienced very little interaction with the people who were delivering the message. Instead, Buller and Burgoon theorized that in a two-way conversation, people react to the statements that are made to them, which may then change the course of the conversation and force the deceiver to use a variety of different, perhaps more obvious, tactics to continue the deception. This interaction and reaction are the keys to the "interpersonal" component of the interpersonal deception theory.
Overview
Buller and Burgoon identified three different primary types of interpersonal deception. These are falsification, concealment, and equivocation. In every case, a message is being delivered from one person to another that is deliberately intended to promote false beliefs. Falsification refers to the creation of an untrue statement; concealment refers to hiding the truth or deliberately omitting certain facts; and equivocation is a method of avoiding making a statement altogether, such as by changing the subject.
Researchers have also identified the three most common purposes for any strategic deceptive act. In general, the deceiver wants to accomplish a specific goal, such as to gain an advantage; to begin or keep a relationship; or to sustain an image, either for himself or the person with whom he is interacting. There are some verbal and nonverbal cues that may indicate deception in a conversation. These include vague, brief, or noncommittal answers; long pauses either before answering or during a response, or even physical withdrawal, such as moving farther away from the person; speaking in generalized terms, which is a type of depersonalization from the message; and purposely displaying behavior that is designed to foster feelings of sincerity, such as nodding and smiling while the other person is speaking. All these behaviors are designed to mask the type of leakage that can reveal a deception.
Studies have shown that, in a deception, these types of strategic behaviors tend to increase if the people know each other very well, if the deceiver is particularly afraid of being revealed and/or has selfish motivations, or if the deceiver has especially good communication skills. However, an interaction that is intended to be deceitful is not the only type of communication that is both intentional and purpose driven. Nearly all types of communication fall into this category, which is one of the reasons that deceit is so difficult to detect. Receivers "leak" through their behavior as well, another factor that influences the direction of the conversation. If the deceiver perceives that he or she is not being believed, the deceptive behaviors will likely increase—in many cases, by subtly imitating or mirroring the behavior of the receiver.
Another factor that contributes to a difficulty in detecting deception is the "truth bias," so named by researchers Steven McCornack and Malcolm Parks. The truth bias refers to the fact that most people perceive interpersonal communication as honest, complete, and direct, even when they are being lied to. Researchers theorize that this bias is based on an implied social contract that people will be honest with each other. Ultimately, people who know each other tend to want to believe each other.
As communication methods change—such as through technology—research into interpersonal deception changes as well, as researchers attempt to identify particular linguistic cues that may indicate a lie. In addition, researchers continue to develop newer models of deception, such as the Park-Levine probability model or the truth default theory, which are often presented as responses to the interpersonal deception theory.
Bibliography
Buller, David B., and Judee K. Burgoon. "Interpersonal Deception Theory." Communication Theory, vol. 6, no. 3, 1996, pp. 203–42.
Burgoon, Judee K. "Rejoinder to Levine, Clare et al.'s Comparison of the Park–Levine Probability Model versus Interpersonal Deception Theory: Application to Deception Detection." Human Communication Research, vol. 41, no. 3, 2015, pp. 327–49.
Griffin, Em. "Interpersonal Deception Theory of David Buller & Judee Burgoon." A First Look at Communication Theory, www.afirstlook.com/docs/interpersdecep.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.
Hearn, James. "Interpersonal Deception Theory: Ten Lessons for Negotiators." Mediate, 2006, www.mediate.com/articles/hearnj1.cfm. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.
Levine, Timothy R. "Deception and Deception Detection." Timothy-Levine.com, timothy-levine.squarespace.com/deception/. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.
Levine, Timothy R., editor. Encyclopedia of Deception. SAGE Publications, 2014.
Leverton, Reed. "Five Findings from Interpersonal Deception Theory That Every Negotiator Should Know." Mediate, 2006, www.mediate.com/articles/levertonr1.cfm. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.
Shuyuan, Mary Ho, et al. "Liar, Liar, IM on Fire: Deceptive Language-Action Cues in Spontaneous Online Communication." IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI2015), 2015, 157–59.