Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Steven McCornack is one of the most cited deception researchers in the communication discipline, with over 1,100 citations of his work. His research career in deception began with his undergraduate thesis at the University of Washington. In this research, conducted under the supervision of Malcolm R. Parks, McCornack and Parks proposed the term truth bias, which is now one of the most researched and robust findings in the deception literature.

McCornack and Parks also put forward a model of Relational Deception. Included in the model was the examination of relational closeness, confidence in the ability to discern truth versus lies spoken by relational partners, truth bias, and accuracy of deception detection. With the model, they proposed that relational closeness or involvement with a partner led to increased confidence in one's ability to detect deception. As confidence increased, so, too, would truth bias. Truth bias was believed to have a negative effect on detection accuracy. So, as relational partners became more involved and relationships developed, ultimately the truth bias would increase, and partners would be less able to detect each other's deception. This model was tested by McCornack and Parks and retested by McCornack and Timothy R. Levine, who found support for the model and that it also was generalizable across low, moderate, and high levels of aroused suspicion. A meta-analysis demonstrated further support for the model.

Information Manipulation Theory

As McCornack began work on his Ph.D., he began collecting data from college students whom he asked to report on a lie told to a romantic partner. From this data he created scenarios with gender-neutral names like “Chris,” and then asked research participants to write down what they thought they would say in response to the scenarios. He discovered violations of Paul Grice's maxims, or the cooperative principle, in the messages participants created. Thus, information manipulation theory (IMT) was born.

McCornack created IMT to better understand the deceptive messages that individuals create, and he posited that messages can be manipulated along dimensions of each of Grice's maxims. Thus, a message may vary in ambiguity (manner violation), how much relevant information it contains (relevance violation), in its veracity (how much false information it includes or quality violation), and in the amount of relevant information it contains (quantity violation). McCornack is clear, however, that the violations on which IMT is based are not to be used to create a typology, as any deceptive messages can vary along each of the four dimensions, and not just along one of the dimensions.

Much of the research on IMT has used the violations to understand perceptions of deception and how these perceptions influence perceived competence of deceptive messages. For example, messages that tend to contain more quality violations, or more complete dishonesty, have in some situations been found to be less competent than messages that do not contain as much distorted information. IMT, although disputed even by McCornack if it meets all the criteria necessary to be considered a theory, has proved to have strong heuristic power. It has stimulated much research, including comparing individualistic and collectivistic perceptions of messages, self-construal and locus of control and perceptions of deceptive messages, and the organizational situations and perceptions of deceptive messages in response to these situations.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading