Information Manipulation Theory 1

Dimensions of Information Manipulation

McCornack argued that deceptive messages involve two broad dimensions of information manipulation: the amount of relevant information that is (or is not) disclosed, and whether the information that is disclosed is truthful or distorted. This two-dimensional model of deceptive message design (that is, Amount × Type) was presented as a conference paper at the Speech Communication Association (SCA) conference in 1988, “The Logic of Lying: A Rational Approach to the Production of Deceptive Messages.”

Subsequently, McCornack revised his two-dimensional model to include four dimensions of information manipulation, based on Grice's theory of conversational implicature. The revised model was presented at an SCA conference in 1990 (“Lying as a Pragmatic Phenomenon: A Theoretical Framework for Addressing Deceptive Message Design”) and subsequently was published as “Information Manipulation Theory” (or “IMT”) in Communication Monographs in 1992.

Violations of Conversational Maxims

IMT argues that during everyday conversations, people orient to four “Gricean” maxims: quantity (the amount of relevant information that is shared), quality (the veracity of shared information), manner (the way in which disclosed information is expressed), and relation (the relevance of disclosed information). People expect that these maxims will be adhered to as a part of the broader norm governing rational and coherent human discourse, which Paul Grice labeled the cooperative principle (CP): “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”

In cases of deception, however, people exploit this expectation of cooperativeness. As McCornack describes, “It is the principal claim of information manipulation theory that messages that are commonly thought of as deceptive derive from covert violations of the conversational maxims. Because the speaker purposefully violates one (or more) of the maxims, s/he deviates from what can [Page 508]be considered rational and cooperative behavior (i.e., behavior that adheres to the CP). Because the violation is not made apparent to the listener, the listener is misled by her/his assumption that the speaker is adhering to the CP and its maxims.”

...