Uncovering Beliefs about Deceptive Communication

Abstract

This study consists of four phases of a research program exploring beliefs that have some bearing on the choices people make when considering deception. The authors argue that understanding why people engage in deception is partially dependent on their deception-related beliefs. The initial stage of this research was inductively driven in order to identify themes of deception that could be verified in subsequent phases of this program. The validation of these factors of deception was attempted through multiple waves of self-report surveys. The five influences tested in phases three and four were acceptance of deception, ethics, motives, intentionality, and upbringing. A series of factor analyses revealed that factors labeled “intentionality,” “deception is wrong,” “acceptance of deception,” and “upbringing” emerged as constructs of deceptive communication. The knowledge gained from this study suggests implications for initiating further work that could shed light on beliefs that most significantly underlying deceptive communication.

Keywords:

• Deception
• Deceptive Beliefs
• Machiavellianism
• Revised Philosophies of Human Nature

Notes

Juliann C. Scholl is in the Department of Communication Studies, Mass Comm Room 266, Box 43083, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3083, USA (Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]-l025; Email: [email protected]). Dan O'Hair is in the Department of Communication, 101 Burton Hall, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-0335, USA. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Interpersonal Communication Division of the International Communication Association annual conference, Washington, DC, USA, May 2001. The authors wish to thank Amy Janan Johnson for her comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript, Karola for her helpful suggestions in designing the first phases of this project, and the reviewers for their comments. Please address all correspondence to the first author.

Initial list of thematic categories from Phase I: intentionality, trust, personal gain/benefit self, benefit others, hurting others, types of deception, types of deceivers, situation/context, motivation, planning/rehearsal, saliency/frequency/prevalence, individuals being deceived, personality/traits, age as a factor, upbringing/background, right/wrong/morality, consciousness/awareness, consequences, gossip, detection, other.

Second list of thematic categories from Phase I: intentionality, trust, personal gain/benefit self, benefit others, hurting others, types of deception, types of deceivers, situation/context, motivation, planning/rehearsal, saliency/frequency/prevalence, individuals being deceived, personality/traits, age as a factor, upbringing/background, right/wrong/morality, consciousness/awareness, consequences, gossip, detection, occupation, trust, other.

Third and final list of thematic categories from Phase I: intentionality, trust, motives, types of deception, situation/context, planning/rehearsal, prevalence, targets, personality/traits, age, upbringing/background, right/wrong/morality, consciousness/awareness, consequences, detection, truth as problematic or effortful, acceptance/expected, role-driven, other.

The deception scale, the Mach IV scale, and the Philosophies of Human Nature Scale are available from the first author upon request.

The authors acknowledge that the items pertaining to “intentionality” appear to imply a lack of awareness of either oneself or the act one is executing. The deception literature addressing intentionality or intent also conceptualizes this construct as the extent to which one mistakenly gives erroneous information.

Although the authors define acceptance in terms of perceptions of an act being appropriate or normative, the emerging items do appear to hint at pervasiveness, or the common occurrence of deception. This leads the authors to conclude that this construct warrants further examination.

The “upbringing” items appear to speak more to the strength of influence on upbringing, not exactly what individuals are taught regarding deception. Perhaps what people are taught regarding deception can be addressed by applying the “deception is wrong” construct. The utility of this scale may rest in helping individuals understand their own personal influences when engaging in deception, particularly the extent to which their parents or family played a part in their current beliefs.

That “intentionality” and “upbringing” were not correlated may result from the isomorphic nature of their constructs. “Intentionality” as the results suggest may refer to engaging in deception with some degree of awareness. In contrast, “upbringing” does not refer directly to deceptive behavior, but to what one is taught by others. If the sample size were larger, however, and if there were another factor included in the correlation (e.g., multiple regression), perhaps these two factors could have been found to be significantly correlated.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dan O'Hair

Juliann C. Scholl is in the Department of Communication Studies, Mass Comm Room 266, Box 43083, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3083, USA (Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]-l025; Email: [email protected]). Dan O'Hair is in the Department of Communication, 101 Burton Hall, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-0335, USA. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Interpersonal Communication Division of the International Communication Association annual conference, Washington, DC, USA, May 2001. The authors wish to thank Amy Janan Johnson for her comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript, Karola for her helpful suggestions in designing the first phases of this project, and the reviewers for their comments. Please address all correspondence to the first author.