Interpersonal deception: VII. Behavioral Profiles of Falsification, Equivocation, and Concealment

David B. Buller, Judee K Burgoon, Cindy H. White, Amy S. Ebesu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

71 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Previous research on deception has typically examined how deceivers behave when falsifying information in a noninteractive context. Guided by Interpersonal Deception Theory, the authors propose that deception may take a variety of forms, reflecting differences in the way senders strategically control message information and the differences in the behavioral profiles accompanying those strategies. The current experiment examined the impact of deception type (falsification, concealment, equivocation), receiver suspicion, receiver expertise, and relational familiarity on strategic and nonstrategic behavior Two adult samples, novices and experts (military intelligence instructors), participated. Interviewers, half of whom were induced to be suspicious, followed a standard protocol of questions. Interviewees answered the first two questions truthfully and then enacted one of the deception forms. Participants evaluated one another's behavior after the interview, and trained coders measured the nonverbal behavior No clear behavioral profile emerged for deception in general. Instead, behaviors associated with deception were strongly influenced by deception type, suspicion, and familiarity, suggesting that preinteractional and interactional features are important determinants of sender behavior. Of the deception types, participants rated equivocation as most brief, vague, and hesitant, whereas falsification was rated lowest on these characteristics. Behaviorally, senders were best able to suppress behavioral activity when equivocating and least able to when falsifying.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)366-395
Number of pages30
JournalJournal of Language and Social Psychology
Volume13
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1994

Fingerprint

falsification
Deception
recipient
interview
instructor
expertise
Interviews
Military
Falsification
Concealment
Equivocation
expert
determinants
experiment
Intelligence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Linguistics and Language
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Social Psychology
  • Education
  • Anthropology

Cite this

Interpersonal deception : VII. Behavioral Profiles of Falsification, Equivocation, and Concealment. / Buller, David B.; Burgoon, Judee K; White, Cindy H.; Ebesu, Amy S.

In: Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1994, p. 366-395.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f2ec00d765d645c6904db3d842bcfd37,
title = "Interpersonal deception: VII. Behavioral Profiles of Falsification, Equivocation, and Concealment",
abstract = "Previous research on deception has typically examined how deceivers behave when falsifying information in a noninteractive context. Guided by Interpersonal Deception Theory, the authors propose that deception may take a variety of forms, reflecting differences in the way senders strategically control message information and the differences in the behavioral profiles accompanying those strategies. The current experiment examined the impact of deception type (falsification, concealment, equivocation), receiver suspicion, receiver expertise, and relational familiarity on strategic and nonstrategic behavior Two adult samples, novices and experts (military intelligence instructors), participated. Interviewers, half of whom were induced to be suspicious, followed a standard protocol of questions. Interviewees answered the first two questions truthfully and then enacted one of the deception forms. Participants evaluated one another's behavior after the interview, and trained coders measured the nonverbal behavior No clear behavioral profile emerged for deception in general. Instead, behaviors associated with deception were strongly influenced by deception type, suspicion, and familiarity, suggesting that preinteractional and interactional features are important determinants of sender behavior. Of the deception types, participants rated equivocation as most brief, vague, and hesitant, whereas falsification was rated lowest on these characteristics. Behaviorally, senders were best able to suppress behavioral activity when equivocating and least able to when falsifying.",
author = "Buller, {David B.} and Burgoon, {Judee K} and White, {Cindy H.} and Ebesu, {Amy S.}",
year = "1994",
doi = "10.1177/0261927X94134002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "366--395",
journal = "Journal of Language and Social Psychology",
issn = "0261-927X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpersonal deception

T2 - VII. Behavioral Profiles of Falsification, Equivocation, and Concealment

AU - Buller, David B.

AU - Burgoon, Judee K

AU - White, Cindy H.

AU - Ebesu, Amy S.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Previous research on deception has typically examined how deceivers behave when falsifying information in a noninteractive context. Guided by Interpersonal Deception Theory, the authors propose that deception may take a variety of forms, reflecting differences in the way senders strategically control message information and the differences in the behavioral profiles accompanying those strategies. The current experiment examined the impact of deception type (falsification, concealment, equivocation), receiver suspicion, receiver expertise, and relational familiarity on strategic and nonstrategic behavior Two adult samples, novices and experts (military intelligence instructors), participated. Interviewers, half of whom were induced to be suspicious, followed a standard protocol of questions. Interviewees answered the first two questions truthfully and then enacted one of the deception forms. Participants evaluated one another's behavior after the interview, and trained coders measured the nonverbal behavior No clear behavioral profile emerged for deception in general. Instead, behaviors associated with deception were strongly influenced by deception type, suspicion, and familiarity, suggesting that preinteractional and interactional features are important determinants of sender behavior. Of the deception types, participants rated equivocation as most brief, vague, and hesitant, whereas falsification was rated lowest on these characteristics. Behaviorally, senders were best able to suppress behavioral activity when equivocating and least able to when falsifying.

AB - Previous research on deception has typically examined how deceivers behave when falsifying information in a noninteractive context. Guided by Interpersonal Deception Theory, the authors propose that deception may take a variety of forms, reflecting differences in the way senders strategically control message information and the differences in the behavioral profiles accompanying those strategies. The current experiment examined the impact of deception type (falsification, concealment, equivocation), receiver suspicion, receiver expertise, and relational familiarity on strategic and nonstrategic behavior Two adult samples, novices and experts (military intelligence instructors), participated. Interviewers, half of whom were induced to be suspicious, followed a standard protocol of questions. Interviewees answered the first two questions truthfully and then enacted one of the deception forms. Participants evaluated one another's behavior after the interview, and trained coders measured the nonverbal behavior No clear behavioral profile emerged for deception in general. Instead, behaviors associated with deception were strongly influenced by deception type, suspicion, and familiarity, suggesting that preinteractional and interactional features are important determinants of sender behavior. Of the deception types, participants rated equivocation as most brief, vague, and hesitant, whereas falsification was rated lowest on these characteristics. Behaviorally, senders were best able to suppress behavioral activity when equivocating and least able to when falsifying.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84965368177&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84965368177&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0261927X94134002

DO - 10.1177/0261927X94134002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84965368177

VL - 13

SP - 366

EP - 395

JO - Journal of Language and Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Language and Social Psychology

SN - 0261-927X

IS - 4

ER -