All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

"Are you lying to me?"Suspicious Receivers' Interaction Goals and Strategic Behaviors within Dating Relationship
Unformatted Document Text:  Suspicious Receivers’ Goals and Behaviors 2 “Are you lying to me?” Suspicious Receivers’ Interaction Goals and Strategic Behaviors within Dating Relationship A growing number of deception studies have pointed out that suspicion reduces the receivers’ reliance on the truth-bias and motivates the receivers to assess the veracity of the messages from the senders (Buller, Strzyzewski, & Comstock, 1991; Burgoon, Buller, Dillman, & Walther, 1995; Burgoon, Buller, Ebesu, White, & Rockwell, 1996; McCornack & Levine, 1990b; Stiff, Kim, & Ramesh, 1992). Although researchers have begun to acknowledge the central role of suspicion in deceptive communication, the scope of suspicion literature is yet very limited. The previous studies in suspicion literature are oriented to two main directions: the impact of suspicion on (a) the receiver’s deception detection accuracy and (b) the interactional patterns of deceptive communication. The studies on a suspicious receiver’s deception detection accuracy examined how one or the combination of the following factors affect the receiver’s deception detection accuracy: the presence of suspicion (Toris & DePaulo, 1985; Stiff et al., 1992), the level of suspicion (McCornack & Levine, 1990b), the receiver’s probing (Buller et al., 1991), the relationship between interactants (McCornack & Parks, 1986). Overall, suspicion has been found to be a significant factor to decrease the receiver’s truth-bias and, when in its moderate level, increase the deception detection accuracy. In terms of pragmatics, it was found that a suspicious receiver strategically controls the expression of his or her suspicion, while nonstrategically leaking the uneasiness of suspicion (Buller & Burgoon, 1996; Buller et al., 1991; Burgoon et al., 1995; 1996). Although the previous suspicion studies enhanced our knowledge on the impact of suspicion on a receiver’s deception detection accuracy and shed better insights on the interplay between the receiver’s suspicion and the pragmatics of deceptive communication, our

Authors: Kim, Induk.
first   previous   Page 2 of 30   next   last



background image
Suspicious Receivers’ Goals and Behaviors 2
“Are you lying to me?” Suspicious Receivers’ Interaction Goals and
Strategic Behaviors within Dating Relationship
A growing number of deception studies have pointed out that suspicion reduces the
receivers’ reliance on the truth-bias and motivates the receivers to assess the veracity of the
messages from the senders (Buller, Strzyzewski, & Comstock, 1991; Burgoon, Buller, Dillman,
& Walther, 1995; Burgoon, Buller, Ebesu, White, & Rockwell, 1996; McCornack & Levine,
1990b; Stiff, Kim, & Ramesh, 1992). Although researchers have begun to acknowledge the
central role of suspicion in deceptive communication, the scope of suspicion literature is yet very
limited. The previous studies in suspicion literature are oriented to two main directions: the
impact of suspicion on (a) the receiver’s deception detection accuracy and (b) the interactional
patterns of deceptive communication.
The studies on a suspicious receiver’s deception detection accuracy examined how one
or the combination of the following factors affect the receiver’s deception detection accuracy: the
presence of suspicion (Toris & DePaulo, 1985; Stiff et al., 1992), the level of suspicion
(McCornack & Levine, 1990b), the receiver’s probing (Buller et al., 1991), the relationship
between interactants (McCornack & Parks, 1986). Overall, suspicion has been found to be a
significant factor to decrease the receiver’s truth-bias and, when in its moderate level, increase
the deception detection accuracy. In terms of pragmatics, it was found that a suspicious receiver
strategically controls the expression of his or her suspicion, while nonstrategically leaking the
uneasiness of suspicion (Buller & Burgoon, 1996; Buller et al., 1991; Burgoon et al., 1995;
1996).
Although the previous suspicion studies enhanced our knowledge on the impact of
suspicion on a receiver’s deception detection accuracy and shed better insights on the interplay
between the receiver’s suspicion and the pragmatics of deceptive communication, our


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 2 of 30   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.