Interpersonal Deception Theory (PDF) - A First Look at ...

CH:\fT1El\ 7: INTU,PLRSONAL DECl:P'llON THEORY99Although this thinking represents"common sense," the bulk of deception researchshows that these particular nonverbal cues are not reliable indicators of deception.5 A chuckling, fast-talking person who avoids eye contact is just as likelyto be telling the truth as is someone who displays the socially accepted signs ofsincerity. When tested under controlled laboratory conditions, people rarely aremore than 60 percent accurate in their ability to spot deception, while a just-bychance50 percent detection rate is more common. It appears that Pat may neverknow for sure what you did or how you felt on Saturday night.AN EMERGENT THEORY OF STRATEGIC INTERACTIONDavid Buller and Judee Burgoon discount the value of highly controlled studiesdesigned to isolate unmistakable cues that people are lying. They agree thathuman beings are rather poor lie detectors, but they don't think that the typicalone-way communication experiment is a helpful way to explore the reason why.They point out that past research has usually involved people listening to scriptedmessages recorded by strangers with whom they've had no chance to interact.This static approach to deception ignores communication dynamics and focusesinstead on internal thought processes-behind-the-eyes explanations for liars'manipulative behavior or the na·ive acceptance of gullible listeners. Buller notesthat "rarely is it acknowledged that receivers react to deceivers' messages and thatthese reactions alter the communication exchange and, perhaps, deception's success."6At the start of the 1990s he proclaimed the need for an interpersonal deceptiontheory that wouldexplain the interplay between active deceivers and detectors who communicate withmultiple motives, who behave strategically, whose communication behaviors mutuallyinfluence one another to produce a sequence of moves and countermoves, and whosecommunication is influenced by the situation in which the deception transpires.?Interpersonal deception theory is the result. Figure 7-1 is a paraphrased digestof the 18 propositions that appeared in a 1996 issue of Communication Theorydedicated to exploring Buller and Burgoon's theory. Although the theorists considertheir model as "work in progress," they arc committed to a set of unchangingassumptions concerning interpersonal communication in general, and deceptionin particular. Most of these assumptions surface in their propositions, but twocore ideas stand out.1. Interpersonal communication is interactive. If the encounter betweenyou and Pat actually took place, both of you would be active participants, constantlyadjusting your behavior in response to feedback from each other. Whateverstory you tell, you shouldn't expect Pat to remain verbally and nonverballymute. One way or another, you'll get a response. In order to capture the reality oftwo-way communication in flux, I've substituted the term respondent for the morepassive term listener in my paraphrase of Buller and Burgoon's propositions.Interaction, rather than individuality, is at the core of their theory.