Sign In Forgot password? Don't have an account? International Communication Association members Sign in via society site. Sign in via your Institution Sign in. Purchase Subscription prices and ordering for this journal Short-term Access To purchase short term access, please sign in to your Oxford Academic account above. This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. View Metrics. Email alerts Article activity alert.
Advance article alerts. New issue alert. Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic. Related articles in Web of Science Google Scholar. Related articles in PubMed Can quality management drive evidence generation? A new canine distemper virus lineage identified from red pandas in China. Evolutionary disruption in the pollination system of Vanilla Orchidaceae. Citing articles via Web of Science Intentional deception requires significantly more cognitive resources than truthful communication, whether the sender engages in falsification lying , concealment omitting material facts , or equivocation skirting issues by changing the subject or offering indirect responses.
IDT explores the interrelation between communicative meaning of the sender and receiver cognitions and behaviors in deceptive exchanges. Interpersonal deception theory views deception through the theoretical lens of interpersonal communication.
As such, it considers deception as an interactive process between a sender and receiver. In contrast with previous studies of deception that focused on the sender and receiver individually, IDT focuses on the dyadic, relational, and dialogic nature of deceptive communication. Behaviors between the sender and receiver are dynamic, multifunctional, multidimensional, and multimodal. Consider the framework of psychotherapy and psychological counseling.
The dyadic, relational and dialogic activity between therapist and patient relies upon honest, open communication if the patient is to recover and successfully integrate into healthier relationships. Deception uses the same theoretical framework, only in reverse, as the communication of one participant is deliberately false.
Sigmund Freud studied nonverbal cues to detect deception about a century ago. Freud observed a patient being asked about his darkest feelings. If his mouth was shut and his fingers were trembling, he was considered to be lying.
MIE states the harder people try to deceive others, the more likely they are to get caught. Burgoon and Floyd, however, revisited this research and formed the idea that deceivers are more active in their attempt to deceive than most would anticipate or expect.
IDT was developed by two communication professors, David B. Buller and Judee K. Prior to their study, deception had not been fully considered as a communication activity. Previous work had focused upon the formulation of principles of deception. These principles were derived by evaluating the lie detection ability of individuals observing unidirectional communication. These early studies found initially that "although humans are far from infallible in their efforts to diagnose lies, they are substantially better at the task than would result merely by chance.
Therefore, IDT is based on two-way communication and intended to describe deception as an interactive communicative process. IDT's model of how deception is played out in interpersonal contexts is presented in the form of 18 empirically verifiable propositions.
Based on primitive assumptions associated with interpersonal communication and deception, each proposition is capable of generating testable hypotheses. While some propositions are original with IDT, many are derived from earlier research. The propositions attempt to explain the cognitions and behaviors of both the sender and receiver during each phase of the iterative process of deception, from preinteraction factors to the interactive process to postinteraction outcomes.
IDT's explanations of interpersonal deception depend on the situation in which interaction occurs and the relationship between the sender and receiver. Individual communicators also approach deceptive exchanges with their own set of preinteraction factors, such as expectancies, knowledge, goals or intentions, and behavioral repertoires that reflect their communication competence. IDT posits that such factors influence the deceptive exchange. IDT posits that preinteraction factors influence the sender's initial detection apprehension and deceptive displays.
IDT further posits that preinteraction factors, combined with initial behavioral displays, affect receivers' initial suspicion and continual detection accuracy. IDT proceeds to describe the iterative process of receiver suspicion displays and sender reactions to those displays.
Finally, IDT posits that a deceptive interaction culminates in a set of postinteraction judgements regarding sender credibility and receiver suspicion. In other words, the interaction between sender and receiver influences how credible the receiver thinks the sender is and how suspicious the sender thinks the receiver is.
Most people believe they can spot deception, but IDT holds that most cannot. This theory mostly explains the different types of deceptive acts, motives for deception, and describes the factors that measure whether an attempt at deception will be a successful act.
Ideas and Implications: Interpersonal Deception is a useful theory for someone who has either attempted to deceive or thought someone was trying to deceive them.
It helps when looking back on a situation to evaluate the verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors to discover if someone has lied.
This theory is usually self-serving, but can also be used to maintain an interpersonal relationship.
Everyone has lied and everyone has been lied to, so Deception Theory is very useful and practical. Example: A concrete example to help understand Interpersonal Deception is an experience between two best friends, Madeline and Isabell: Last weekend while Isabell was out of town, Madeline got too intoxicated at a fraternity party and kissed her best friend's boyfriend. Not only is Madeline not telling Isabell about what happened, even when she questioned her about what she did last weekend, Madeline lied and said she went to a friend's house and did not even drink.
Relevant Research: Shuy, R. The Language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception. Dupuy, J. Self-Deception and Paradoxes of Rationality. Cooper, T. Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory 2nd ed.
0コメント