Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lying Online: Examining the Production, Detection, and Popular Beliefs Surrounding Interpersonal Deception in Technologically-Mediated Environments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication

Abstract

Communication technologies, such as texting, social network sites (SNSs), and online dating, raise questions about how interpersonal deception plays out in communication environments that differ from face-to-face. This chapter provides a state-of-the-art review of (1) online deception production, or how much people lie online; (2) popular beliefs about online deception, or how much deception people think occurs online; and (3) online deception detection, or how accurate deception detection tends to be in online environments, and what cues are diagnostic of deception. We pay particular attention to the link between technological affordances and deception, proposing that communication technologies contain deception enablers, or affordances that facilitate deception (e.g., editability, reduced nonverbal cues) and deception constraints, or affordances that minimize deception (e.g., recordability, the presence of an audience).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner,15, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., et al. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science,21, 372–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baym, N. (2010). Personal connections in a digital age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnholtz, J., Guillory, J., Hancock, J., & Bazarova, N. (2010, February). On my way: Deceptive texting and interpersonal awareness narratives. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 1–4). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review,10, 214–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle, D., Olson, G., & Wright, Z. (2002, April). Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 135–140). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonus, J. A., & Toma, C. L. Sex, lies, and media use: Perceptions of deception about romantic infidelity across face-to-face and mediated communication. Manuscript in preparation.

    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, 572–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Dilman, L., & Walther, J. B. (1995). Interpersonal deception. Human Communication Research,22, 163–196.

    Article  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, 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., & Gorsky, P. (2006). Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion. CyberPsychology & Behavior,9(1), 54–59.

    Article  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,70, 979–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 51–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Kirkendol, S. E., Tang, J., & O’Brien, T. P. (1988). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,12, 177–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45, 1096–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drouin, M., Miller, D., Wehle, S. M., & Hernandez, E. (2016). Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the internet”. Computers in Human Behavior,64, 134–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Burgoon, J. K., Kelley, K. M., Harrison, K. J., Adame, B. J., et al. (2015). Effects of veracity, modality, and sanctioning on credibility assessment during mediated and unmediated interviews. Communication Research,42, 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Tower, D. C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2014). Synchronization of nonverbal behaviors in detecting mediated and non-mediated deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,38, 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, N. D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics,31, 439–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2012). Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society,14, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foglia, V. (2015). Detecting deception in face to face and computer mediated conversations (Unpublished thesis). Algoma University. Retrieved from http://archives.algomau.ca/main/node/42532.

  • Frisby, B. N., & Westerman, D. (2010). Rational actors: Channel selection and rational choices in romantic conflict episodes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,27, 970–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. F., & Robb, A. (2008). Deception and computer-mediated communication in daily life. Communication Reports, 21, 92–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communication Research,33, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,37, 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M., & Kruse, S. A. (2012). Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Computers in Human Behavior,28, 642–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). The effect of LinkedIn on deception in resumes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,15, 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,27, 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, J., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior. In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129–134). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication,59, 367–386.

    Article  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, 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during interrogations. Psychology, Crime, & Law,13, 213–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review,19, 307–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertlein, K. M., & Ancheta, K. (2014). Clinical application of the advantages of technology in couple and family therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy,42, 313–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, J. M., Hancock, J. T., Booth, C., & Liu, X. (2016). Computer-mediated deception: Strategies revealed by language-action cues in spontaneous communication. Journal of Management Information Systems,33, 393–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525056.pdf.

  • Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., et al. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research,37, 377–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logue, M., Book, A. S., Frosina, P., Huizinga, T., & Amos, S. (2015). Using reality monitoring to improve deception detection in the context of the cognitive interview for suspects. Law and Human Behavior,39, 360–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naquin, C. E., Kurtzberg, T. R., & Belkin, L. Y. (2010). The finer points of lying online: E-mail versus pen and paper. Journal of Applied Psychology,95, 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(5), 665–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrerra, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs,69, 144–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review,111, 781–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, L., Gillette, S., Marder, J., Miles, Z., Vodenski, P., Weintraub, A., … Hancock, J. T. (2011). Contact stratification and deception: Blackberry messenger versus SMS use among students. In P. Hinds (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 221–224). New York, NY: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, L., Smith, M. E., Birnholtz, J. P., & Hancock, J. T. (2013, February). Butler lies from both sides: Actions and perceptions of unavailability management in texting. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 769–778). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scissors, L. E., Roloff, M. E., & Gergle, D. (2014, April). Room for interpretation: The role of self-esteem and CMC in romantic couple conflict. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3953–3962). ACM.

    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, 2–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. W., & Duggan, M. (2013). Online dating & relationship. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Online-Dating.aspx.

  • Smith, M. E., Hancock, J. T., Reynolds, L., & Birnholtz, J. (2014). Everyday deception or a few prolific liars? The prevalence of lies in text messaging. Computers in Human Behavior,41, 220–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toma, C. L. (2014). Political phishing. In K. Harvey (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social media and politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma, C. L. (2015). Online dating. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma, C. L., & Carlson, C. L. (2015). How do Facebook users think they come across in their profiles?: A meta-perception approach to Facebook self-presentation. Communication Research Reports,32, 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research,37, 335–351.

    Article  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, 78–97.

    Article  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, 1023–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toma, C. L., Jiang, L. C., & Hancock, J. T. (2016). Lies in the eye of the beholder: Asymmetric beliefs about one’s own and others’ deceptiveness in mediated and face-to-face communication. Communication Research, 45(8), 1167–1192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association,36, 143–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (2014). Channel choice, justification of deception, and detection. Journal of Communication,64, 1139–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Swol, L. M., Braun, M., & Kolb, M. (2015). Deception, detection, demeanor, and truth bias in face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Communication Research,42, 116–1142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Swol, L. M., & Paik, J. E. (2017). Deciding how to deceive: Differences in communication and detection between good and bad liars. Communication Quarterly,65, 503–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warkentin, D., Woodworth, M., Hancock, J. T., & Cormier, N. (2010). Warrants and deception in computer-mediated communication. In K. Inkpen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 9–12). New York, NY: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, M. T., Buchanan, T., Joinson, A. N., & Meredith, A. (2012). Not all lies are spontaneous: An examination of deception across different modes of communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63, 208–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, M. T., & Carville, S. E. (2008). Would I lie to you? Self-serving lies and other oriented lies told across different media. Computers in Human Behavior,24, 1021–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimbler, M., & Feldman, R. S. (2011). Liar, liar, hard drive on fire: How media context affects lying behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,41, 2492–2507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Catalina L. Toma & Lyn M. Van Swol

  2. School of Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    James Alex Bonus

Authors
  1. Catalina L. Toma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Alex Bonus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lyn M. Van Swol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catalina L. Toma .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Studies, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA

    Tony Docan-Morgan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Toma, C.L., Bonus, J.A., Van Swol, L.M. (2019). Lying Online: Examining the Production, Detection, and Popular Beliefs Surrounding Interpersonal Deception in Technologically-Mediated Environments. In: Docan-Morgan, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_31

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation