Search results

An experiment examined how veracity, modality, and experimenter sanctioning of deception influenced credibility assessments made by professionals who conducted interviews face-to-face (FtF) or by video conference (VC). Participants ( N = 243) completed a trivia game with a confederate who encouraged cheating. Some lies were sanctioned by the experimenter and others were unsanctioned. The professional interviewers educed a high number of confessions in the sanctioned (58%) and unsanctioned (79%) lie conditions. Overall accuracy of the interviewers ranged from 45% to 67%. Interviewers were more accurate when judging veracity FtF than in VC. Those in the deceptive VC conditions (especially sanctioned liars) were rated by interviewers as more dominant, involved, relaxed, and active than those in the FtF condition, revealing that modality affected deceivers' demeanor.

This paper examines how power differences and deception jointly influence interactional dominance, credibility, and the outcomes of decision-making. Two theories, interpersonal deception theory and dyadic power theory, were merged to produce hypotheses about the effects of power and deception. A 3 (power: unequal-high, unequal-low, equal) × 3 (deception: truth-truth, truthful with deceptive partner, deceptive with truthful partner) experiment ( N = 120) was conducted in which participants were asked to make a series of mock hiring decisions. Actor-partner analyses revealed that participants in the deception condition reported a significant increase in perceptions of their own power whereas their truthful partners reported a significant decrease in perceptions of their own power. Further, interactional dominance fostered credibility and goal attainment (i.e., making the best hiring decision in the truthful condition and hiring a friend in the deceptive condition) for both truth-tellers and deceivers.