Interpersonal Deception Theory by Adriana Johnson

2,658 views

Published on

Explains IDT, who uses it, its significance, criticisms, and the editors two cents on the subject.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,658
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
38
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Interpersonal Deception Theory by Adriana Johnson

  1. 1. Interpersonal Deception Theory By Adriana Johnson
  2. 2. What is it? A theory of deception between two communicators where predictions are made based on characteristics of the source, receiver, context, message,feedback, and channel (Avtgis, Infante, & Rancer, 2009). Receiver/Predictor Source/Deceiver Channel Channel Message & Context Feedback
  3. 3. What is it? Deception, theorized by IDT, is no different from any other form of communication. Even if the person is truthful or deceitful, the universal goals of effectiveness and appropriateness are still being followed (Avtgis et. al.,2009).
  4. 4. What is it? To be an effective deceiver, one must handle a large amount of information in an efficient manner. Therefore, the receiver is active and corresponds to the deceptive encounter.
  5. 5. Who uses it? Psychologists, Communication researchers, and Sociologists use IDT in their scientific inquiries, empirical studies, experiments, and meta analyses. Also, Theorist who believe messages “do things” to people use IDT. Two leading men that have added on to IDT are Buller and Burgoon (DePaulo, Malone, Lindsay, Muhlenbruck, Charlton,& Cooper,2003).
  6. 6. Who uses it? Buller and Burgoon developed twenty-one propositions for the theory (Avtgis et. al., 2009). Proposition seven states that deceiving for self-gain prompts more strategic activity and nonstrategic behavior than deceiving for the benefit of others. This proposition can be identified in the Madoff ponzi scheme. Bernard Madoff
  7. 7. So what…? It's one of the most comprehensive and developed theories that deals with deceptive communication. IDT theorists expect that with new technology, social networking sites will extend the present propositions to account for the increasing media choices for interacting.
  8. 8. So what…? Not only is this theory useful for theorists but also detectives trying to find online sexual predators, investigators examining information from deceptive individuals, and also helps identify deceitful messages on a daily basis (Lina, Burgoon, Dongsong, & Nunamaker,2004).
  9. 9. Criticism Since its beginning, the theory has continued to grow alongside new deception processes. Several theorists applaud Buller and Burgoon on their addition to the theory. Their 21 propositions provide a comprehensive description of a timeline of deceptive interactions. But the problem with these propositions is the lack of predictive power necessary for qualifying as a centralized theory.
  10. 10. Criticism According to Baxter and Braithwaite (2008), some of the propositions are generic and intend to emphasize variables that explain deception but not IDT. They also believe that IDT is not completely substantive and only tackles the difficult issue of whether deceivers adapt their behavior.
  11. 11. What Else You Should Know Next time you feel like you are being deceived, examine the accused person of deception's nonverbal expression. They may exhibit something called leakage which is ,according to IDT, a manifestation most overtly seen in nonverbal signals which betrays verbal communication. If their nonverbal expressions contradict their verbal message, deception may be occurring.
  12. 12. References Avtgis, T., Infante, D., & Rancer, A. (2009). Contemporary communication theory. (pp. 241-246). Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Baxter, L., & Braithwaite, D. (2008). Engaging theories in interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. DePaulo, B., Malone, B., Lindsay, J., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74- 118. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
  13. 13. References Lina, Z., Burgoon, J., Dongsong, Z., & Nunamaker, J. (2004). Language dominance in interpersonal deception in computer-mediated communication. Computers In Human Behavior, 20, 381-402. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00051-7 Quickmeme. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.quickmeme.com/make

×