Testing Interpersonal Deception Theory: The Language of Interpersonal Deception

Authors

  • David B. Buller,

    1. David Buller and Judee Burgoon are professors in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Judee K. Burgoon,

    1. David Buller and Judee Burgoon are professors in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Aileen Buslig,

    1. Aileen Buslig is a doctoral student. James Roiger is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arkansas, Monticello, AK 71 655.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • James Roiger

    1. Aileen Buslig is a doctoral student. James Roiger is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arkansas, Monticello, AK 71 655.
    Search for more papers by this author

  • This project was funded by the U.S. Army Research Institute (Contract MDA903-90-K-0113). The uiews, opinions, and findings in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision.

Abstract

An analysis of verbal behavior was undertaken to test principles of interpersonal deception theory (IDT). It was predicted that language choice in deceptive messages would reflect strategic attempts to manage information through nonimmediate language. This linguistic profile, though, was expected to be altered in response to preinteractional factors - relational and behavioral familiarity - and interactional factors - form of deception and receiver suspicion. Results from two investigations are reported: a secondary analysis on interactions in an earlier study (Burgoon, Buller, Dillman, & Walther, 1995) and analysis of a primary experiment employing a 2 (relationship) × 2 (receiver expertise) × 2 (receiver suspicion) × 2 (truth/deception) within-subjects factorial design. As expected, senders displayed greater verbal nonimmediacy when deceiving. Expertise had a greater effect on linguistic behavior than a prior relationship with the receiver, with senders using more verbal nonimmediacy with novice receivers. Senders were more verbally nonimmediate when equivocating. Suspicion produced a mixed pattern of linguistic cues. The possibility that changes produced by preinteraction and interactional factors were strategic attempts to bolster credibility is discussed.

Ancillary