I conducted this experiment on one of my friends who I live with. First, I engaged in a lean medium Instant Message conversation with her in which I told her a true story of me getting lost on the beach when I was 8 years old. Shortly after I told her a false story, in a media rich face-to-face setting, of an instance in which my family was on a hike and got separated. Following the second story, I asked my friend which story she thought was entirely fabricated. She correctly guessed that the second story, which was told in FtF communication, was false.
I attempted to tell the fabricated lie in a way that would convince her that it was true. I did so by attempting to map out the story in advance, and clarify with myself any details that I thought should be included. Due to the fact that I was relaying the fabricated story in a rich medium, I attempted to make eye contact and avoid awkward pauses in my speech.
One aspect of rich media that I never considered before engaging in this experiment was the factor of outside influences. In lean media, such as an email or instant messaging, there is little room for outside distractions or interruption. However, as I told my fabricated story through face-to-face communication, another one of my friends entered the room where I was telling my friends the fabricated story. Her entrance proved to be a great distraction that completely threw off my train of thought. I found myself struggling to put my thoughts together and continue to deliver my story in a logical order.
When I asked my friend how she deciphered that my second story was false, she pointed to two main factors. Firstly, she found that some of what I said did not make sense (ie. We left for a hike in the morning and did not return until that night). Secondly, she detected that I became quite anxious when my third friend entered the room. She stated that if I was telling the truth, such a distraction would not have thrown me off as much as it did.
The results of my experiment support the Social Distance Theory (DePaulo, 1996), which states that lying is uncomfortable and therefore people will choose to lie within more “socially distant” media. I think a lean medium would have facilitated my attempt to convince my friend that a fabricated story was in fact the truth. Within the constraints of lean media, there would not have been the opportunity for outside distractions to detract from my thought processes. Additionally, I think it would have been easier for me to get my thoughts together by typing them out, enabling me to actively edit my story, without my friend knowing.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/a41-truth-is-beautiful-without-doubt.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-deception-on-facebook.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think it’s very interesting how your friend’s deception production played out. In class, we discussed how it may be harder to detect a lie face to face than in CMC. With regard to face to face, we mentioned that people have a natural truth-bias and that audiences often attend to faulty cues. However, it seems that with your experience, your audience was able to pick up on the cues you were giving off, such as your anxiety when you’re other friend entered, as well as the lack of sense in some parts of your story. You would think it would be easier to track this lack of sense if it were in an IM or an email because you could scroll or look back and see that something wasn’t right, however, your friend picked up on this subtle fact anyways. Also, it seems that she wasn’t distracted by the distance that IM put between you or the lack of cues lost in CMC. Overall, it seems that your friend is very observant and good at deception detection! Very interesting post!
Post a Comment