Did You Just Lie to Me? Deception Detection in Face to Face versus Computer Mediated Communication

References

• Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36(3), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01382.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: Defining, explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59(1), 70–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903443849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, C. J., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth-Butterfield, S., & Gould, M. (1986). The communication anxiety inventory: Validation of the state- and context- communication apprehension. Communication Quarterly, 34(2), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378609369633
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6(3), 203–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., & Strom, R. E. (2008). Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue availability in detecting deception. Human Communication Research, 34(4), 572–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00333.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (2008). Interpersonal deception theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithewaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 227–239). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., White, C. H., Afifi, W., & Buslig, A. S. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Chen, F., & Twitchell, D. P. (2010). Deception and its detection under synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(4), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9168-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, J. R., George, J. F., Burgoon, J. K., Adkins, M., & White, C. H. (2004). Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011942.31158.d8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caso, L., Gnisci, A., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2005). Processes underlying deception: An empirical analysis of truth and lies when manipulating the stakes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspi, A., & Gorsky, P. (2006). Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(1), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.54
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Conty, L., Russo, M., Loehr, V., Hugueville, L., Barbu, S., Huguet, P., Tijus, C., & Nathalie, G. (2011). The mere presence of eye contact increases arousal during a word-spelling task. Social Neuroscience, 5(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910903227507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutrow, R. J., Parks, A., Lucas, N., & Thomas, K. (1972). The objective use of multiple physiological indices in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 9(6), 578–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1972.tb00767.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979
   Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Telling ingratiating lies: Effects of target sex and target attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(5), 1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drouin, M., Miller, D., Wehle, S. M. J., & Hernandez, E. (2016). Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the internet”. Computers in Human Behaviour, 64, 134–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunbar, N. E., Ramirez, A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). The effects of participation on the ability to judge deceit. Communications Reports, 16(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210309384487
   Google Scholar
• Edelmann, R. J., & Baker, S. R. (2002). Self-reported and actual physiological responses in social phobia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466502163732
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ekman, P. (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. W W Norton & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 32(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1969.11023575
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10(3), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ennis, E., Vrij, A., & Chance, C. (2008). Individual differences and lying in everyday life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507086808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gage, N. L., & Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Conceptual and methodological problems in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 62(6), 411–422. https://ezproxy.msvu.ca/10.1037/h0047205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galanxhi, H., & Fui-Hoon Nah, F. (2007). Deception in cyberspace: A comparison of text-only vs. avatar-supported medium. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(9), 770–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• George, J. F., Giordano, G., & Tilley, P. (2016). Website credibility and deceiver credibility: Expanding prominence-interpretation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38. https://ezproxy.msvu.ca/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 43–58). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock, J., & Woodworth, M. (2013). An “Eye” for an “I”: The challenges and opportunities for spotting credibility in a digital world. In B. S. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 325–340). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock, J. T. (2007). Digital deception: Why, when and how people lie online. In A. Joison (Ed.), Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 289–301). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701739181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, J. T., Woodworth, M. T., & Goorha, S. (2010). See no evil: The effect of communication medium and motivation on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(4), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9169-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A., & Albright, L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 390–402. https://ezproxy.msvu.ca/10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. NY: Guildford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, L. J., Safer, M. A., & Lench, H. C. (2006). Remembering and misremembering emotions. In L. J. Sanna, E. C. Chang, L. J. Sanna, & E. C. Chang (Eds.), Judgments over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp. 271–290). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195177664.003.0015
   Google Scholar
• Mabry, E. A. (2002). Ambiguous self-identification and sincere communication in CMC. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 247–264). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mauss, I. B., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Is there less to social anxiety than meets the eye? Emotion experience, expression, and bodily responding. Cognition and Emotion, 18(5), 631–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930341000112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramirez, A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2004). The effect of interactivity on initial interactions: The influence of information valence and modality and information richness on computer-mediated interaction. Communication Monographs, 71(4), 422–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000307461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redelmeier, D. A., Katz, J., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Memories of colonoscopy: A randomized trial. Pain, 104(1–2), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00003-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. E., Hancock, J. T., Reynolds, & Birnholtz, J. (2014). Everyday deception or a few prolific liars? The prevalence of lies in text messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Talwar, V., Crossman, A., Williams, S., & Muir, S. (2011). Adult detection of children’s selfish and polite lies: Experience matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(12), 2837–2857. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00861.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teper, Z., & Inzlicht. (2015). How emotions shape moral behavior: Some answers (and questions) for the field of moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1348/1355325041719356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., & Baxter, M. (1999). Accuracy and confidence in detecting truth and lies in elaborations and denials: Truth bias, lie bias and individual differences. Expert Evidence, 7(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008932402565
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). An empirical test of the behaviour analysis interview. Law of Human Behavior, 30(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9014-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild, J., Clark, D., Ehlers, A., & McManus, F. (2008). Perception of arousal in social anxiety: Effects of false feedback during a social interaction. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 39(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.11.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. J., & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011944.62889.6f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, L., & Zhang, D. (2007). Typing or messaging? Modality effect on deception detection in computer-mediated communication. Decision Support Systems, 44(1), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.03.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar