Suspicious Receivers’ Goals and Behaviors 4
communication, several methodological limitations remain, calling for further exploration of the
phenomenon.
The methodological limitations of the previous suspicion studies primarily originate in
the use of experimental designs. The experiments in the previous suspicion studies typically
adopt following procedures: Participants are randomly assigned to the role of interviewer or
interviewee. Half of the interviewees are asked to provide dishonest answers to the questions,
while the other half of the interviewees are asked to answer the questions truthfully. The content
of the interviewee’s tasks varies across the studies: honest or dishonest reactions to a film clip
(Stiff et al., 1992), acting consistently or inconsistently with one’s own personality in a simulated
job interview (Toris & DePaulo, 1985), answering truthfully or untruthfully to the Social
Desirability Scale (Buller et al., 1991) or Machiavellinism Scale (McCornack & Levine, 1990b),
and showing one’s actual or simulated attitudes (Burgoon et al, 1995; 1996). Suspicion is
induced to the half of the interviewers. Interviewers either directly interact with the interviewees
face to face (Buller et al., 1991; Burgoon et al., 1995; 1996; Toris & DePaulo, 1985) or watch the
interviewees’ videotaped responses (McCornack & Levine, 1990b; Stiff et al., 1992) and are
asked to make judgments whether the interviewees were truthful or not.
The most critical limitation resides in the unrealistic nature of the experiments. The two
unrealistic manipulations are (a) the induced suspicion and (b) the honesty judgments as a given
task. Suspicion in reality is not always initiated by the third party. Rather, suspicion can arise in
the receiver’s mind spontaneously. Previous experimental studies cannot account for the impact
of such spontaneous suspicion. Also, a suspicious receiver in reality is hardly required to make
an honesty judgment by the third party. How and at which moment to make an honesty judgment
or even whether to make an honesty judgment completely depend on the receiver in real life
interactions. Previous experimental studies failed to fully reflect such autonomy that a suspicious
Convention