Interpersonal Deception Theory

Written for Theories of Communication (COM 3001) | Seattle Pacific University

In an archived chapter of A First Look at Communication Theory, Em Griffin looks at the Interpersonal Deception Theory of David Buller and Judee Burgoon. The Interpersonal Deception Theory examines deception within relationships. Buller and Burgoon undercover concepts about why people may lie, how they lie, and how the person being deceived will also react. When people lie, Buller and Burgoon note that a person’s verbal and nonverbal communication will give specific clues. These propositions are laid out in an 18-point list describing what will happen during deception for both the deceiver and the respondent. When a story is told, it is up to the respondent to be able to interpret whether or not the statement or story being told was true. Buller and Burgoon also explain how the respondent will react to certain clues and actions and how suspicion plays out during communication.

After more than two dozen experiments involving deceit, Burgoon and Buller have discovered that people use three different types of deception: falsification, concealment, and equivocation. Falsification creates an untrue narrative of an event, concealment hides a secret, and equivocation completely dodges the issue at hand. The two explain that these types of deception are used in order to avoid hurting someone, embellish on certain qualities, to avoid conflict, and to alter a relationship. Griffin uses the example of a boy lying to his ex-girlfriend about where he was the night before (at a party with another girl) to avoid conflict. He elaborates on Burgoon and Buller’s theory stating that the boy could lie about where he was, tell the truth, or be evasive. Since the boy wants to stray away from confrontation, he will either pick evasiveness or a completely new lie altogether. Griffen then asks whether or not the ex-girlfriend would be able to pick up on the lie being told. Burgoon and Buller would say that under the Interpersonal Deception Theory, it would be highly unlikely. They say this because when tested under controlled laboratory conditions, it was rare for a person to be 60% accurate in spotting a lie. People have a better chance at blindly guessing than going off of clues such as eye contact, stuttering, nervous laughs, and involuntary ticks.

The term “interpersonal” was added to Buller and Burgoon’s deception theory in the 1990s after Buller pointed out the important fact that the act of deception is based on both strategy and reaction. This clarification was made after a study was done showing how people detected lies that were prerecorded. Buller argued that this test was invalid since it was based on one-way communication. There were two core points of the theory’s clarification Buller wanted to make known: interpersonal communication is interactive and strategic deception demands mental effort. Conversations take place between two or more people. The flow of the conversation is based off of what the speaker says and the reaction he/she receives from their audience. Griffin notes that interaction is at the core of this theory. The success or failure of deceit can easily rely on how the receiver (or in Griffin’s term: listener) responds both verbally and nonverbally. When the deceiver is communicating, they must monitor reactions and act accordingly in order to be believed. This involves elaboration of a lie based on any comments from the listener, damage control (if necessary), and keeping and maintaining a calm complexion. The latter is crucial considering most nonverbal communication is involuntary. If the deceiver does at one point slip up, Buller and Burgoon call this “leakage”—mainly in regards to nonverbal slips. Buller and Burgoon then propose 18 points which fully explain how the strategy of a deceiver works including how to recover from leakage. The following forms of deceitful interaction will help to summarize these 18 propositions.

Buller and Burgoon note that at the core of deception is the manipulation of information. The two theorists believe that deception is based upon motives instead of the act of deceit itself. However, there are three aims of deception which make this statement complicated. When people manipulate words, it is to accomplish a task, maintain or begin a relationship, or to sustain the image of one or both parties involved. Buller and Burgoon note four different signs of deceivers who are manipulating information. They are not always easy to catch, but if noted, they can be a tell-tale sign of a well thought out (or not so well thought out) lie. The first is uncertainty and vagueness. If someone is keeping a secret, they may try to keep their answers short and vague. Griffin notes that a popular way of doing this is to speak in the passive voice. The next sign is non-immediacy and withdrawal. When someone feels the need to lie, they usually wish they were not in the situation at all. This desire to be someplace else will be present in nonverbal actions. The deceiver may create physical distance, lean away, or pause during responses. They will also change present-tense verbs to past-tense. Griffin explains this as “a linguistic move that says in effect, ‘I’m history’” (102). In other words, the person has nothing left to do or say other than to create a barrier.

The third sign of information manipulation and deceit is disassociation. This response is a way to distance the liar from whatever they did. This means that the deceiver will shift the responsibility of their actions onto others. This comes in the form of levelers (removing choice from an action), group references (shared responsibility), and modifies (downplaying a specific incident). The fourth red flag is image- and relationship-protecting behavior. If a lie is premeditated, the liar will more often time than not practice their lie and their nonverbal communication. To minimalize leakage and maintain a positive reputation, deceivers will nod more often, avoid interrupting, and smile. Buller and Burgoon note, “It appears that smiling may be a simple, all-purpose strategy enacted to cover up deceit” (102). Smiling is a way to say that everything is okay. The theorists explain that these strategies are used to aid effective deception. However, while strategy does play a part, there do need to be nonstrategic moves in order to be effective as well. If a speech sounds too planned and there’s no room for two-way communication, any surprise reaction can throw the deceiver off guard. This can result in leakage.

As noted, leakage can occur when a deceiver’s will for control over the conversation produces nonstrategic leaks of information. It is rare to have a well thought out game plan without some sort of nonverbal red flag. Griffin looks to Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester to explain why these leaks happen. Zuckerman explains, as mentioned above, when someone seems too smooth, something is bound to slip. Secondly, he notes that lying causes physiological arousal (which ends up showing on lie detectors). Third, most humans feel guilty and anxious after telling a lie and reaction to this guilt is inevitable. Lastly, while trying to maintain a cool complexion, cognitive overload can cause behaviors to go unattended and shine through. This leads to leakage which can be shown through multiple nonverbal devices. While smiling was one of the main clues that Griffin points to, it does not make Zuckerman’s list. Zuckerman includes actions such as increased blinking, enlarged pupils, increased speech hesitations, a higher pitch in the voice, and frequent mistakes in speech. While taking these patterns into account, Buller and Burgoon note that it is important to take all factors in consideration and to focus on “the decline of the deceiver’s overall performance” (104). Griffin explains this as taking into account all unexpected move signals. Griffin also notes that even though an interactive context gives deceivers a better chance at getting away with a lie, deception also depends strongly on how suspicious the listener is.

Buller and Burgoon point out that most people aren’t skeptic. When it comes to listening to someone’s story, there is a truth bias most people hold within their systems. The desire to believe someone comes from a mutual agreement between individuals that whatever is spoken will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is rare that people expect to be lied to. This tactic takes place unconsciously in conversation unless deception is blatantly obvious from the start. In this case, a listener may seal themselves off from any indication of truth. Suspicion, according to Buller and Burgoon, is described as a state of doubt. It can be held without significant evidence or proof that the other person really is lying. Suspicion is a mindset which falls between truth and falsity. Any red flag indicators mentioned before can create suspicion.

Others may be natural skeptics. However, natural skepticism is usually lost within the first minutes of interaction. When someone is cynical, they usually close themselves off internally and overcompensate externally through eye contact, nodding, and smiling (much like deceivers) to avoid confrontation. The reactions of the deceiver and listener depend on the reactions by the other person. Each person will play off of the verbal and nonverbal cues given by the other. Burgoon notes that since deceivers are so intensely motivated by their reputation, they are often more successful at spotting suspicion than listeners are at spotting deception. If there are any signs of doubt, deceivers will automatically change their behaviors to match the mood and manner of the listener. Burgoon refers to this back-and-forth communication as “a chain of offensive and defensive maneuvers on the part of both participants” (105). She explains this by saying that maneuvering against one another in such a fashion is like a game. Unfortunately, those who have a truth bias and shut out the possibility of being lied to have no idea they are playing.

The main criticism Burgoon and Buller receive for their Interpersonal Deception Theory is the theory’s overall complexity. Critics note that when it comes to theory, relative simplicity must apply. Relative simplicity says to rely on the simplest theory to explain reasoning. When compared to Zuckerman’s four-factor model of deception, Burgoon and Buller’s theory should be pushed aside. Critics also say that Burgoon and Buller do not express the overall question of why people tend to lie. Burgoon and Buller argue that the main concepts of interactive contexts, strategic manipulation of language, nonverbal leakage, truth biases, suspicion, etc. do describe the “why” factor. However, this “why” question is difficult to explain clearly since communication and deceit are so complex. There is no simple answer to why people do what they do or why people can’t detect lies. It all comes down to how people communicate. Buller and Burgoon note that it is difficult to do studies on deceit situations because they cannot create such complex situations.

For me, I agree with Buller and Burgoon. It is difficult to pinpoint an exact reason and theory to why people do what they do. There are too many factors regarding personal reflection, relationships, and what the actual situation entails. Lying and deception rely on how one can communicate with another and how the other person will react to what they are told. An authentic (for lack of better words) recreation for examination is close to impossible to make and to study. While relative simplicity is important for most theories, I think that Buller and Burgoon’s “complicated” model for deception is brilliant considering that lying is just that: complicated. There can’t be a simple method or strategy that people rely on to be able to detect a lie. I know people who are natural skeptics and can catch a lie instantly. I also know others who will believe every word that is spoken to them. Why? I’m not entirely sure. Neither are theorists. Buller and Burgoon’s examination on each factor that is involved in the act of deceit is, in my opinion, helpful, thorough, and captures the true complex nature of deception.

References:

Buller, David B. and Judee K. Burgoon. “Interpersonal Deception Theory.” Communication Theory 6.3 (1996):

203-244. Web. 16 Aug 2015.

DePaulo, Bella M., Miron Zuckerman, and Robert Rosenthal. “Humans as Lie Detectors.” Journal of

Communication 30.2 (1980): 129-139. Web. 16 Aug 2015.

Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 6th ed. New York, New York: McGraw Hill Higher

Education, 2001. Web. 8 Aug 2015. Web. 16 Aug 2015.

#academic