Lying is an age-old skill, a skill that transcends pure linguistics, a skill that dates back to the primitive, nomad societies. With the invent of new communication technologies, many tricks in the liar’s sleeve have changed. Over text, one would have to be more careful lying than in person. After all, we have spent much of our lives lying face to face, but excluding the upcoming generation, we are not as well versed in CMC. You can’t look into their eyes or act relaxed, and ironically, you can’t gauge your target as well to see whether she’s wary of your words. After all, deception goes both ways, and a liar needs to know whether he’s laying it on too thick.
I talked to a close friend to see whether she would recognize message-based deception over AOL Instant Messenger. So, to not draw any attention, I had to keep my “voice’ steady as I described the mess left in my suite, presumably left by the less-than-sober sort on West Campus on a Saturday night. It was plenty difficult typing at the same pace I usually do or keeping the language the same; “same” is easy to maintain until one tries to do so. Do I usually use the word “garbage” or “junk”? Would I normally send shorter messages to vent my frustrations out quicker? Considering we were frequent “chatters,” I tried not to raise her suspicions.
Despite the difficulties, lying is an old dog that has little need to learn new tricks. A good lie is best when undetectable, but without the full advantage of the truth bias real life would offer, CMC lying requires extra care. I came up with a plausible explanation for the mess: drunk people can be rowdy, messy, and inconsiderate, and no one would be surprised if they were to leave a mess. Also, I mentioned details that she knew to be true, like the fact that there were lots of parties the night before, which associates the lie with truth.
Sadly, my friend knew me a bit too well, and suspected me from the minute I said I was going to clear the trash, even if it was just from my doorway (evidently, I am a very lazy person). Although I saw that a problem, I didn’t realize she was especially skeptical until it was too late for me to correct my mistake. In comparison, I told her a truthful story over the phone. When I described to her one of my trips to
4 comments:
I completely agree that it’s a lot easier to pass off a lie face-to-face than over CMC. I think the point is a bit counter-intuitive, because on first glance you’d think lying in a lean medium, with fewer betraying “tells” to manage, would be easier, but like you experiment shows, that’s never been my experience.
This makes sense if we look at the kinds of signals that we make available over CMC. Over the Internet, you’re reduced to a scrolling line of text, and thus stripped of all your assessment signals that would otherwise help your credibility. Questioning a screen name is a lot easier than questioning a living, breathing human being.
Hi Thomas,
I really liked your blog, your experiment was really interesting. I also agree that lying in FtF is much easier than CMC. Personally, I’m a horrible liar and people usually even think I’m lying when I’m telling the truth. However, looking at it from the detector’s side, I feel I’m much more likely to detect a lie over CMC than FtF. The filtered out cues that CMC provides allows the detector to really hone in on the lie, whereas in FtF there are many more distractions occurring. Your look into truth bias is also very good and I also completely agree. The strong sense of truth bias one gets when talking to another person in FtF is incredibly strong, making it much easier to be lied to in FtF rather than CMC.
~Ben
Thomas-
I found your findings particularly interesting because I conducted the same experiment and got completely different results. My friend easily depicted the fact that I was lying when I told her a fabricated story through a face-to-face conversation. However, your mention of the truth bias makes a lot of sense. I feel as though my experiment’s conclusion, which suggested that it is easier to lie in a lean medium, was most likely the result of my personal input to the study. Upon reflection, it seems as though my friend was able to pick up on the fact that I was lying because of the presence of certain cues, such as my inability to articulate a false message. I found that I had trouble speaking in my normal tone of voice, at a normal pace, whilst trying trying to make sure my facts were straight. I find that, personally, I would be more comfortable lying in a lean medium where such cues would be filtered out. Regardless, I really enjoyed reading your post and reflecting on how individuals may have different experiences when delivering deceptive messages in different media.
Thomas,
I found it interesting that when you were lying you actually had to think about the way you normally talk, like typing at the same pace or word choice. It was also fascinating to me that even though you lied about such a simple thing as cleaning up the trash your friend was immediately able to catch your lie because it was such an out of character action. It seems that no matter what plausible explanation you give, or no matter how well you can associate a lie with the truth, we have innate characteristics that are visible to everyone around us and help them to identify our truths and lies.
Unlike many I am undecided to whether I feel that lying is easier in FtF or in CMC. I feel that in your situation I agree that the truth bias played a role in your friend’s belief in the legitimacy of your Toronto trip. I also agree that some people probably do find that it is easier to lie in richer media because they are able to feed off of cues of others and then adjust their lies accordingly.
I think you connected your experiment to the different theories extremely well and I look forward to future posts.
Lauren
Post a Comment