1. 1
This study was designed to test for a relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication. 24 subjects (12 male,
12 female) were paired into groups of two (one male, one female). Subjects were then prompted to answer a series
of 12 questions that were read aloud by the female practitioner. Questions varied in subject matter from mathematics
to current events. Among the 12 questions were 3 questions containing false information and 6 questions providing
further opportunities for subjects to fabricate knowledge. The results showthe confirmation of the hypothesis and
clear significance in the relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication, as 21% of the time men spoke was
dedicated to knowledge fabrication while 7% of the time women spoke was dedicated to knowledge fabrication.
Additional results were calculated through various measures to find that women engage in more nonverbalcues than
men. Further additional results were calculated to find that a significant relationship is shown through descriptive
statistical data that men are more likely to have a higher self-esteem than women when it comes to knowledge,
whereas women are more likely to feel more pressure to be smarter than men when it comes to knowledge.
WHO LIES? : A STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND
KNOWLEDGE FABRICATION
Mark C. H. Byars and Emma M. Cox
Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania
Various primary, scholarly research studies, which will be indicated below, have
addressed possible relationships between gender and a number of components of lying and
dishonesty. However, much of it is limited, specific and difficult to locate. Lying is frequent,
unavoidable, and used in everyday life. In one-out-of-every-three interactions, college students
reported lying (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996). So, if lying is so frequent,
why is the research so limited? There are many aspects of lying that can be further studied and
addressed to enhance and broaden current research. In Lying in Everyday Life, a research study
addressing the many aspects of lying, it is brought to attention that many questions about lying,
or in this case knowledge fabrication, need to be addressed (DePaulo et al., 1996). The question
being asked in this study is—Is there a relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication,
which is tied closely to lying?
According to Dictionary.com, a lie is “a false statement made with the intent to deceive”
(Lie¹). According to the same source, fabrication is “something fabricated, especially an
untruthful statement” (Fabrication). In addition, and of significance, Thesaurus.com also lists
fabrication as a synonym for lie (Lie²). For the purposes of this study, knowledge fabrication is a
false statement with the intent to pass as the truth. Throughout this study, these terms will be
used interchangeably.

2. 2
GENDER DIFFERENCES
Men and women are socialized differently from childhood. Boys are raised to think
about rules and individual rights, while girls focus more on relationships and compassion. “This
can lead boys to have more self-centered values, to believe that the ends can justify the means
and to, therefore, be predisposed to pursue competitive success more strongly than girls” (Hogue,
Levashina, & Hang, 2011, p. 401). Women are also more likely to disclose personal information
than men. From childhood, parents tend to discuss emotions with girls, not boys. At the same
time, boys may feel pressure from their parents and/or peers to “avoid emotional expression”
(Landoll, Schwartz-Mette, Rose, & Prinstein, 2011, p. 411). This could be a factor when an
individual presented with a question does not have an answer; men may do what they have to do
to cover up any vulnerability, while women may open up about the problems that they have with
the question
GENDER AND LYING
A limited number of studies show that men are more likely to lie than women. For
example, a study observed whether men or women would more readily “fake it” in a job
interview, meaning fabricate knowledge in order to appear more knowledgable. The researchers
created scales to measure extensive image creation, “the complete invention of an image of a
good job applicant,” image protection, “defending the image of a good job applicant,” slight
image creation, “enhancing personal qualities to present the image of a good job applicant,” and
ingratiation, “gaining favor with the interviewer to improve the appearance of being a good job
applicant” (Hogue, et al., 2011, p. 403). The researchers found that men use the most severe
form of lying, extensive image creation, more than women. This corresponds with the above
mentioned “self-centered values” of men (p. 401). Another study that shows that men are more
likely to deceive than women, had 128 college students (64.4% women, 34.6% men) take their
midterm exam. The students completed the exam and handed it in to be graded. While they
were actually graded and recorded, the students were told that they had to grade their own exams
in the interest of time. When the instructor was finished going through all of the correct answers
the students resubmitted the graded exams. Those grades were then compared to the original
grades that were previously recorded. Results found that 39.29% of men cheated and only 10%
of women cheated (Ward & Beck, 2001). Also, Robinson, Obler, Boone, Adamjee, and
Anderson (1998) found that society view men as less truthful than women, in a study that
included a series of listening to various statements by both men and women.
LIE DETECTION AND ACCEPTABILITY
Some studies go into detail about gender and lie detection and acceptability. Lie
acceptability is best described as the attitude a person has concerning the acceptance of deceit
(Oliveira & Levine, 2008). A previous study had 385 subjects view four different videotaped

3. 3
scenarios that depicted simulated job interviews. This study’s purpose was to find a relationship
between gender and lie detection ability. Two interviews were made up of true information and
two included fabricated information. The participants were then asked to assess the honesty
levels of the interviewees, as well as address the communicator styles through a questionnaire.
The results showed that there are possible differences between genders, when differentiating
truth from lies. Women base honesty on attentiveness and men were more likely to base
dishonesty in males on attentiveness and honesty in women on friendliness (O’Hair, Cody, Goss,
& Krayer, 1988). An additional study that focused on gender and lie detection saw 46 subjects
(23 male, 23 female) rate how believable a male and a female speaker were. The subjects rated
the speakers on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = “definitely telling the truth,” 2 = “probably
telling the truth,” 3 = “the rater cannot be sure,” 4 = “probably lying,” and 5 = “definitely
lying”). The results showed that the male speaker was perceived as “less truthful” than the
female speaker (Robinson et al., 1998). This shows us that women are less likely to have their
lies detected than men. DePaulo, Stone and Lassiter (1985) performed a study in which they
focused on the differences in sincerity among lies in regards to different genders and how
genders detect a liar based on same-sex and opposite-sex pairings. The researchers tested to see
if men and women were more likely to notice a lie among the same or opposite genders, as well
as which gender gives off more easily detectable actions while lying. The subjects were 64 (32
male, 32 female) University of Virginia students. The study tested the subjects on how they
indicated a lie or the truth through genders, as they discuss four controversial topics, including
both facts and fictions on their feelings of the topic. The results of the study oppose other
research that we found, and previously indicated. It says that lies of women are more easily
detected than lies of men. The study also found that individuals are able to detect lies told by the
opposite sex, more easily than individuals of the same sex (DePaulo et al., 1985).
Along those same lines, a study went into further detail about which gender is more likely
to accept or deny lies. The subjects were given a scenario and four responses to that scenario.
One of the responses was a complete lie, another was a lie of omission, one equivocation and the
last option was the honest truth. The subjects responded to each of the options on a 7-point
Likert-type scale. Although the results of this study were inconclusive, the data show a slight
sway in the direction that men reported higher levels of lie acceptability (Oliveira & Levine,
2008).
LYING AND NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
There is variety of research going into detail about different nonverbal cues associated
with lying. A study suggests that the subject’s level of relaxation is a big indicator of whether or
not deception is being used. A high level of relaxation indicates honesty while nervous behavior
such as leg/foot movement indicates deceit (O’Hair et al., 1988). Eye contact and general
attentiveness are also important indicators of deception. “Communicators who are perceived as
attentive may imbue an impression of thoughtful receptivity, intuitively associated with
truthfulness,” (O’Hair et al., 1988, p.80). In the same vein, liars tend to avoid eye contact and

4. 4
when they try to recite a prepared lie a conscious effort is made to maintain eye contact.
Research from the same study also shows that nervous laughter is more prominent in females
than males (Cody & O’Hair, 1983).
In this study we will test a two-tailed hypothesis: There is a relationship between gender
and knowledge fabrication. There is not enough conclusive evidence to say that men or women
will fabricate more knowledge, thus we made the decision to include a two-tailed hypothesis in
our study. This study is aimed to further research so that scholars and practitioners will have
enough evidence to further research on the matter, as well as supplying the general public with
more research-oriented information on the subject matter, which is part of everyday life.
METHOD
SUBJECTS
Twenty-four college students (12 male, 12 female), ranging from ages 18-24, participated
in this experiment and survey research. Subjects were randomized in a convenient sample in the
Bailey Library and the Smith Student Center (SSC) at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania.
DESIGN AND EXPERIMENTAL TASK
This study was a single factor (knowledge fabrication), two group (gender—male,
female) design.
The task, being a single-blind experimental study, consisted of having the subjects (in
groups of two—one male, one female) believe they were part of a study on the relationship
between gender and various areas of knowledge, rather than the relationship between gender and
knowledge fabrication. This belief was brought on by brief instructions (see PROCEDURE and
Appendix A) given by the practitioners. The reasoning behind the instructions, masking the true
reason of the study, was due to a previous study that shows that subjects give more legitimate
answers, allowing for more accurate data, if they do not feel as though they are being
manipulated (Fisher, 2013). Following the instructions, the subjects were verbally asked a twelve
question questionnaire (See Appendix A), constructed by the practitioners, made up of various
areas of knowledge, including sports, art, popular culture, science, mathematics, politics, and
common knowledge. Nine of the questions included factual content, some basic knowledge and
some harder, possibly less known content. Three of the questions included fictional content (i.e.
fictional names of individuals and content). The fiction-oriented questions, as well as the harder,
possibly less known questions, were designed in order to observe and indicate whether or not a
subject would fabricate an answer that they did not have a clear answer to.
After the initial questionnaire, subjects participated in survey research, where they were
asked to complete a written eleven question questionnaire (See Appendix B), constructed by the

5. 5
practitioners, by writing their responses on a Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree,” in order to further research and possible findings concerning why the subjects
fabricated their knowledge. The questions ranged from confidence in their answers,
discouragement when they do not know the answers to questions, self-esteem when it comes to
knowledge and whether or not they feel pressure to be more knowledgeable than members of
their opposite gender.
DEPENDENT MEASURES
Knowledge fabrication was assessed and measured by the number of times a subject gave
an answer to the fiction-based questions, as well as when subjects answered factual questions
with false information (coded 1 = fabrication evident or 0 = no fabrication evident). Four
questions in the questionnaire were not used in the calculations of knowledge fabrication data, as
they were not clear, nor significant, detectors of knowledge fabrication, just simple errors (the
four discarded questions are addressed in bolded font, within Appendix A). The three fiction-
based questions included were: (1) “In honor of the recent passing of Eliza Ducane (fictional),
what qualities, if any, do you believe made her a successful actress?”; (2) “How do you think
possible Democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential election, Malcolm Foxberg (fictional),
will be able to help our nation?”; (3) “How does hybodroxyl (fiction) fertilization help the
growth of plants?”
Fiction-based questions (1) and (3) were designed to seem factual, as they are believable
information, as science and popular culture knowledge vary through an extensive amount of
topics. In designing fiction-based question (2), the construction and content were based on a
study concerning politics and young adults. Mueller and Reichert (2004) found that though
young adults were being targeted at a much larger rate (69%), through media outlets, such as
Rolling Stones (300%), their knowledge of the subject was not increasing. These findings
brought us to believe that young adults do not know much information concerning politics,
making it more likely that they would fabricate knowledge concerning a political figure, if they
are inclined, rather than skip it over or make a connection with previous and prior fiction-based
statements (1) and (2). All other questions ranged a variety of topics, as indicated above, and
fabrications of knowledge involved were dependent on the knowledge of the subject (See
Appendix A). The significance of difference (Chi Square alpha) for this result was .05.
ADDITIONALDEPENDENT MEASURES
With regard to knowledge fabrication, additional significant dependent measures were
involved, including confidence, discouragement, self-esteem, and gender role pressure. All of the
following statements were voted on a 5-point Likert scale included on the eleven (four
significant to research, seven repetitive/filler) question post-experimental questionnaire (See
Appendix B). The subjects’ confidence in their answers was assessed through the statement:
“You feel confident in your answers to the previous questions.” (5 = strongly agree to 1 =

6. 6
strongly disagree). The subjects’ level of discouragement when they do not know answers was
assessed through the statement: “You feel discouraged when you do not know the answers to
questions.” (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). The subjects’ level of self-esteem
pertaining to knowledge was assessed through the statement: “You have a high level of self-
esteem when it comes to knowledge.” (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). And lastly,
the subjects’ tendency to feel pressure in being more knowledgeable than members of the
opposite gender: “You feel pressure to be more knowledgeable than individuals that are of the
opposite gender of you.” (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). The significance of each
quality, in relationship to gender, was measured through descriptive statistics by finding the
mode of each gender in terms of each statement, as well as the sum of the scores each gender
scored on each of the four characteristics.
Previous research was the base of reasoning behind statements involving self-esteem and
gender roles. The calculations involved were put in place to back up the current research stating
that men have higher self-esteem than women (Witt & Wood., 2010), and that men are more
concerned with holding a higher standing of reputation (gender roles) than women (Hogue et al.,
2011). Based off of our own curiosity and similarities with prior research, we made the addition
of calculating the relationship, if any, between gender and confidence and discouragement, in
terms of knowledge, with gender.
Along with the data collected from the areas indicated above, during the time of verbal
questioning, the listening practitioner calculated the nonverbal communication behaviors of the
subjects during time of knowledge fabrication and uncertainty of content in an original three
categories, based on research involved with the relationship between gender and lying: eye-
contact, leg movement, and nervous laughter/smiling. An additional fourth category, agreement,
was added in during the time of the experiment, based on observation and a clear relationship
concerning gender. Each of these nonverbal traits were simply counted each time they occurred
in each gender (coded 1 = nonverbal cue displayed or coded 0 = no nonverbal cue displayed).
That data was then combined into one total score to represent each gender. The significance of
difference (Chi square alpha) for this result was .05.
The amount of time each gender talked was also calculated to detect which gender, if
any, spoke more often, as well as calculate how much of the percentage of time each gender
spoke was made up of knowledge fabrication. The data were collected by simply counting each
time a gender gave an answer to the verbal questionnaire (coded 1 = answer or coded 0 = no
answer). That data were then used to test the significance of difference. The significance of
difference (Chi square alpha) for this result was .05.
PROCEDURE
Subjects were randomly selected in a convenience sample at Bailey Library and SCC and
paired into groups of two (one male, one female). Before each session, subjects were given
instruction by the female practitioner that read: “We are conducting a study on the relationship
between gender and different areas of knowledge. Please answer the following twelve questions

7. 7
to the best of your ability. Everyone has the chance to answer each question, though it is not
mandatory.” The instruction was included to make sure the subjects did not feel forced into
answering questions to which they did not have a clear answer. Prior research shows that male
voices are viewed to be less truthful and more easily detected in terms of dishonesty than female
voices (Robinson et al., 1998), so we chose to have the female practitioner ask the subjects
questions. This decreased the chance that participants would suspect that they were involved in
anything other than what was explained to them.
The subjects then went through the twelve question questionnaire (See Appendix A),
which were also asked verbally by the female practitioner, while the male practitioner observed
and recorded the subjects nonverbal cues. The subjects were given no help or further instruction
concerning the questions during the time of the experimentation by the practitioners, when
asked.
Following the verbal questionnaire, subjects were asked to fill out the eleven question
questionnaire (Appendix B) without discussing the content with one another.
Following the experiment and survey research, the subjects were then thanked and
debriefed. Oliveira and Levine (2008) indicated, through a study, that men are more likely to
accept lies than women. Due to this source, we were ready to dehoax subjects, if need be.
However, none of the subjects verbalized or showed signs of feeling deceived or manipulated.
RESULTS
RATE OF LYING
The rate of lying was observed and counted based on frequency of lies among each
gender (coded 1 = fabrication evident, or coded 0 = no fabrication evident). Knowledge
fabrication counted when a subject answered a fiction-based question or gave a false answer to a
question of significance. As indicated above and bolded in Appendix A, four items that lacked
significance and clear ability to fabricate knowledge, were discarded in the counting of possible
times a subject was able to lie. That broke the results down to be based on calculations that each
gender had the possibility to lie a total of 96 times. Out of those 96 possible times, results
showed that men fabricated knowledge a total of 22 times throughout the experiment, where
women fabricated knowledge a total of 7 times throughout the experiment.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
The gender of the subject was the independent variable in this study. Gender is defined
by the practitioners as the subjects’ identified gender (male, female).

8. 8
TEST OF HYPOTHESIS
The hypothesis stated that there is a relationship between gender and knowledge
fabrication. In order to test the hypothesis, the frequencies of lying (men=22, women=7) were
then calculated into a Chi Square test, as shown in Table 1. The total number of lies made
throughout the study by both men and women (29), went into testing the significance of the
relationship at a significance level of .05. The test tested a hypothesis of a 1:1 ratio of
relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication, in order to see if an even relationship
was shown. If there was a failure to confirm a significant equal relationship of the topics, we
would be able to confirm our hypothesis that there is a relationship between gender and
knowledge fabrication. After finding ᵡ² (7.76), the result was then compared to the Chi Square
alpha (critical value) 3.841. The critical value was found through the significance value (.05) and
the degrees of freedom ((n-1) = (2-1) = 1). With ᵡ² (7.76) exceeding the critical value (3.841), the
hypothesis of the study was confirmed. A full layout of the calculations can be found in Table 1.
ADDITIONALRESULTS
Throughout our research, various findings were mentioned concerning the reasons people
lie, based on gender, and nonverbal cues of lying/uncertainty based on gender. We found this
information significant enough to test throughout our study, to further knowledge of the topic, as
well as giving various reasoning and signs behind of our dependent variable. We went through a
variety of measures in calculating this data, as well.
The first additional test we performed concerned the relationship between gender and the
frequency of speech. This study was conducted not only to test a relationship, but to allow for the
percentages of lying in regards to frequency of speech among each gender. The significance of
the relationship was tested in a Chi Square test (Table 2). The frequency of speech among each
gender was calculated throughout the time of experimentation (coded 1 = answer, or coded 0 =
no answer). Those numbers (men=105, women=87), were then tested on a 1:1 ratio relationship
between gender and frequency of speech. After finding ᵡ² (1.68), the result was then compared to
the Chi Square alpha (critical value) 3.841. The critical value was found through the significance
value (.05) and the degrees of freedom ((n-1) = (2-1) = 1). With the critical value (3.841)
exceeding ᵡ² (1.68), a hypothesis of 1:1 ratio was confirmed, showing no true significant
relationship between gender and frequency of speech. A full layout of calculations can be found
in Table 2.
A third Chi Square test was performed to test the significance of the relationship between
gender and nonverbal cues of knowledge fabrication/lying and/or uncertainty. The nonverbal
cues were measured through frequency of occurrence (coded 1 = nonverbal cue evident, or coded
0 = no nonverbal cue evident evident) on four aspects: loss of eye contact, leg movement,
nervous laughter/smiling, and agreement. The scores of each, indicated in Table 3, were then
added together to represent two scores (men=26, women=60). Those numbers, were then tested
on a 1:1 ratio relationship between gender and nonverbal cues of knowledge fabrication/lying

9. 9
and/or uncertainty in a Chi Square test (Table 4). After finding ᵡ² (13.44), the result was then
compared to the Chi Square alpha (critical value) 3.841. The critical value was found through the
significance value (.05) and the degrees of freedom ((n-1) = (2-1) = 1). With ᵡ² (1.68) exceeding
the critical value (3.841), a hypothesis of 1:1 ratio was rejected, confirming a large significant
relationship between gender and nonverbal cues of knowledge fabrication/lying and/or
uncertainty. A full layout of calculations can be found in Table 4.
Lastly, components in the reasoning people lie were tested. Measurements of the
components, confidence in answers, discouragement when not knowing an answer, self-esteem
in terms of knowledge, and pressure to be more knowledgeable than members of the opposite
gender, were obtained through a post-experimental questionnaire (See Appendix B). The
characteristics were measured on a Likert Scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree).
Those numbers were then summed (Table 5), indicating an overall value of the characteristic of
each gender. The mode of agreement upon each gender in terms of each characteristic was also
calculated (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree) to show further support. In this section,
confidence (men=50, women=50) and discouragement (men=46, women=46) had the same sums
for each gender, and slightly different modes, showing no trace of a significant relationship.
However, self-esteem showed an overall sum (men=50, women=36) and a mode (men=no mode
but the majority of answers fell within the “agree” and “strongly agree” rankings, women=2)
significance in terms of the relationship between gender and the level of self-esteem when it
comes to knowledge. The overall sum (men=22, women=49) and mode (men=no mode but the
majority of answers fell within the “disagree” and “strongly disagree” rankings, women=3) of
the pressure on gender roles shows significance in terms of the relationship between gender and
the pressure to be smarter than members of the opposite gender. No male subject indicated that
they “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement: “You feel pressure to be more knowledgeable
than individuals that are of the opposite gender of you.” A full listing of the characteristic data
can be seen in Table 5.
Table 1: The Significance ofDifference Concerning the Relationship Between Gender and
Knowledge Fabrication (Chi Square Test)
H0: There is a 1:1 ratio relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication.
O E O - E (O - E)² (O - E)² / E
Men 22 14.5 7.5 56.25 3.88
Women 7 14.5 -7.5 56.25 3.88
Total: 29 29 ᵡ² = 7.76
Degrees of Freedom = (n-1) = (2-1) = 1
Critical Value = 3.841
Significance Value = 0.05

10. 10
Table 2: The Significance ofDifference Concerning the Relationship Between Gender and Quantity
of Speech (Chi Square Test)
H0: There is a 1:1 ratio relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication.
O E O - E (O - E)² (O - E)² / E
Men 105 96 9 81 .84
Women 87 96 -9 81 .84
Total: 192 192 ᵡ² = 1.68
Degrees of Freedom = (n-1) = (2-1) = 1
Critical Value = 3.841
Significance Value = 0.05
Table 3: Descriptive Statistical Data on the Relationship BetweenGender and Nonverbal
Cues of Knowledge Fabrication/Lying and/or Uncertainty
Dependent Independent Sum of
Occurrence
Variable Variable Among All
Subject
Nervous Laughter
Male 15
Female 22
Loss of Eye Contact
Male 10
Female 21
Leg Movement
Male 1
Female 11
Agreement
Male 0
Female 6
Gender Total: Male 26
Female 60
Overall Total: 86

11. 11
Table 4: The Significance ofDifference Concerning the Relationship Between Gender and
Nonverbal Cues ofKnowledge Fabrication/Lying and/or Uncertainty
H0: There is a 1:1 ratio relationship between gender and nonverbal cues of lying and uncertainty.
O E O - E (O - E)² (O - E)² / E
Men 26 43 -17 289 6.72
Women 60 43 17 289 6.72
Total: 86 86 ᵡ² = 13.44
Degrees of Freedom = (n-1) = (2-1) = 1
Critical Value = 3.841
Significance Value = 0.05
Table 5: Descriptive Statistical Data on the Relationship Between Gender and Reasoning For
Lying/Knowledge Fabrication

12. 12
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION AND EXPLANATIONOF RESULTS
The relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication was examined through
experimental research, and furthered with additional findings through experimental and survey
research, on a series of questionnaires and observations. We proposed a two-tailed hypothesis:
There is a relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication. Through a Chi Square test,
we were able to confirm our hypothesis. The critical value (3.841) was less than the ᵡ² (7.78), as
indicated in Table 1. That means that we were able to reject the null hypothesis that there is no
relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication, as well as that relationship being equal,
in return confirming our hypothesis. The findings show that there is a clear relationship that men
fabricate knowledge more than women.
Through frequency results, the number of times each genders talked in the study were
calculated (men=105, women=87). From that information, we were able to calculate the
percentage of times each gender lied (men=22, women=7), with regard to the number of times
they spoke. These numbers brought us to the findings that 21% of the time men spoke was
dedicated to lying (22/105), whereas 8% of the time women spoke was dedicated to lying (7/87).
With regard to gender and frequency of speech, additional results, shown in Table 2,
show that there is no significance in the relationship between the two areas. Through a Chi
Square test (Table 2), designed much like the one indicated above, a hypothesis that there is a 1:1
ratio relationship between men and women was confirmed, as the critical value (3.841) exceeded
the chi square value (1.68), showing support for no significant relationship between gender and
frequency of speech. The significance was based on a .05 significance value. However, there
were slight difference shown, as men spoke 55% of the time (105/192), whereas women spoke
45% of the time (87/192). This is further addressed in SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH, below.
Nonverbal cues, with regard to knowledge fabrication and/or uncertainty, are also
addressed and measured (see Tables 3), showing that women give off a significant amount (See
Table 4) more nonverbal cues (loss of eye contact, leg movement, nervous laughter/smiling, and
agreement) than men. Within the Chi Square test, the chi square value (13.44) exceeded the
critical value (3.841), supporting research that there is a relationship between gender and
nonverbal cues of lying. The significance was based on a .05 significance level. In regards to the
total number of nonverbal cues throughout the whole study (men (26) + women (60) = 86),
women gave off 70% of nonverbal cues (60/86), whereas men gave off 30% of nonverbal cues
(26/86).
Lastly, results of the relationship between gender and characteristics of knowledge show
possible support for the research (See Table 5). No significant difference was found concerning
the relationship between gender and confidence or discouragement concerning knowledge, as
both genders had similar responses. However, a seemingly significant relationship is shown

13. 13
through descriptive statistical data, concerning gender and high self-esteem in terms of
knowledge, as well as pressure to be more knowledgeable than members of the opposite gender.
In terms of simple calculations, as well as central tendencies (mode), it is shown that men are
more likely to have a higher self-esteem than women when it comes to knowledge, whereas
women are more likely to feel more pressure to be smarter than men when it comes to
knowledge.
Through the results found in the testing and confirming of our hypothesis (there is a
relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication), as well as additional research and
results, our study adds a variety of primary research, along with extensions and support of
scholarly, primary research studies, to the study of gender and lying, or in this case, knowledge
fabrication. There are also areas involved that did not show a clear significant relationship, such
as gender and frequency of speech, as well as characteristics and feelings concerning lying,
which could be addressed and extended upon in further studies. The overall relationship between
gender and lying/knowledge fabrication has been confirmed and supported through this study, as
well as various other aspects that tie into the topic, such as nonverbal characteristics and
reasoning behind and feelings toward knowledge and lying, in general.
LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH
With all research come limitations. There are a variety of different factors that could
have affected the results of the study. One of those factors is the insinuation that lying and
knowledge fabrication are synonymous. There was no way for us to tell with full certainty if
someone was fabricating knowledge with the intent to deceive. Though the definitions are
closely related, they are not the same. For our intents and purposes the terms could be used
interchangeably, but without asking the subjects if they fabricated knowledge on purpose, there
is no clear way to know.
Another limitation is the fact that we had a small sample size. 24 college students
collected in a randomized convenience sample, around the same age, is not a sizeable
representation of the parameter of the population in terms of gender. However, the subjects were
made of up various ethnicities, backgrounds, and characteristics, showing some level of
variation.
Another limitation is that the subjects were paired into groups of two, consisting of one
male and one female. Research suggests that an individual will disclose more when they are
paired with a person of the same gender (DePaulo et al., 1996). If we had same-gender pairs it
would be more likely that the subjects would express if they didn’t know an answer, changing
the results of the study.
A substantial limitation to this study is the fact that neither practitioner involved is trained
in more than the basic measure of detecting nonverbal communication. Background research
was conducted, but that is no substitute for proper training. Some nonverbal cues could have
been misinterpreted, making the information involved irrelevant to the study.

14. 14
A limitation that was apparent from the beginning of this research process was a lack of
pertinent primary scholarly research. The final limitation that will be discussed is the presence of
outside variables, such as the various levels of concentration subjects possessed, pressure felt by
subjects to answer questions (regardless of where that pressure came from), and nervousness of
the subjects, along with other aspects that may have varied from person-to-person.
In further research of the topic, these limitations could be taken into account and
modified to make the areas of this study more reliable, significant and representative.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Researchers could move forward by asking, why do men fabricate knowledge more than
women? This could be done by leading men to answer questions using false knowledge followed
by asking them why they gave the answer that they did. Do they do it to save their image? Do
they do it because it’s easier than searching for the real answers to questions? These questions
should be addressed in a controlled environment with a large sample of men. There should be a
male practitioner present to ask the questions because as we’ve seen, individuals are more open
with individuals of the same gender (DePaulo et al., 1996). This sort of study would benefit
researchers by expanding the vast wealth of research there is on various gender differences. This
example would be a more in-depth look into the thought processes of men, in regards to
lying/knowledge fabrication.
This study could also help researchers focused on the effects of a child’s upbringing look
for things that potentially influence that part of their development. If they get close to the exact
practices or occurrences that assign the male gender roles they could figure out ways to decrease
these influences or shape them to create something more positive.
Due to the limited amount of training in analyzing nonverbal cues, further research could
be done. These experiments should include a videotaped question and answer session with the
same kind of questionnaires that were designed in this study. This way, experts can go over the
results as many times as they need, so they are able report more concrete, accurate data. This
could help people in management positions when they are looking to hire. It could provide them
with details to look for in their interviewees in order to see if they really know what you are
asking them or if they’re making it up. This would lead to hiring more legitimately qualified
employees which would obviously be beneficial to their business.
We did not find a significant difference between gender and the number of times
individuals spoke. Researchers could once again assemble a larger, more controlled sample of
men and women with the sole purpose of recording the frequency at which people spoke with
regard to gender. The results from that type of study would aid in understanding gender
differences concerning speech dominance and level of comfort either gender has with speaking
to individuals of the same and opposite gender.
Further research should be extended to different medias and enhance the validity of this
study; would a person be more likely to fabricate knowledge orally or in a written environment?
This could be tested by having a two-part questionnaire, half oral and half written questions. This

15. 15
would open a whole new set of nonverbal cues with which the practitioner would need to be
familiar (such as time taken writing responses, length of responses, etc.). This would help in
finding the most effective ways to avoid knowledge fabrication in classroom settings, job
interviews or any other scenario in which knowledge fabrication could be evident.
Would a person be more likely to fabricate knowledge in low-stakes or high-stakes
situations? Research shows that “men are more likely than women to make up untrue
information during an upcoming job interview” (Hogue et al., 2011). The very same study goes
on to say that people who use one of the most severe forms of lying, extensive image creation,
will move further in the hiring process than those who had a genuinely bad outcome. What does
this mean? It means that when the stakes are high, like when a job is on the line, people tend to
fabricate quite a bit, and why shouldn’t they if research shows that they’ll get ahead? But what
would happen if the stakes were low, or there were no stakes? Would those same people who
employed extensive image creation be as likely to fabricate knowledge in our study? This all
could be tested in a job interview setting in which normal, high-stakes questions would be asked.
Either before or after that interview, a confederate (such as a secretary or other building
employee) could ask a series of low-stakes questions without any interview-related material.
These two data sets would then be compared side-by-side to determine where they’d be more
likely to fabricate knowledge or if they’d fabricate in both situations.

16. 16
APPENDIX A
The following is a list of questions that will be verbally asked to the
subjects by the investigators:
Verbal instructions prior to questions: We are conducting a study on the
relationship between gender and different areas of knowledge. Please answer
the following 12 questions to the best of your ability. Everyone has the
chance to answer each question, though it is not mandatory.
1. Off the top of your head, what is 8 X 9?
2. What do you think is the main reason Tom Wolf won the Pennsylvania
Governor’s Election over Tom Corbett?
3. What is gluten?
4. In honor of the recent passing of Eliza Ducane, what qualities, if any, do
you believe made her a successful actress?
5. Which of Shakespeare’s plays is your favorite and why?
6. Is Coach Mike Tomlin a better coach than Bill Cowher to the Pittsburgh
Steelers? Why or Why not?
7. What’s your best explanation as to why Pluto is no longer a planet?
8. What day of the year does the United States of America celebrate
Valentine’s Day?
9. How do you think possible Democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential
election, Malcolm Foxberg, will be able to help our nation?
10. Do you believe Taylor Swift is a good role model for young
girls? Why or why not?
11. How does hybodroxyl fertilization help the growth of plants?
12. In your opinion, what are the advantages or disadvantages of
Obamacare?

17. 17
APPENDIX B
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND DIFFERENT AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE: FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONNAIRE
Gender:
Age:
Instructions: Please mark an (X) in the circle, where it best applies to you,
following each statement.
1. You feel confident in your answers to the previous questions.
2. You feel you gave your answer in a timely manner.
3. You feel that you are knowledgeable in a variety of topics.

18. 18
4. You feel discouraged when you do not know the answers to questions.
5. You found the questions asked easy to answer.
6. You feel pressure to know the answer to questions, even outside of this
study, when asked.
7. You have a high level of self-esteem when it comes to knowledge.
8. You fabricate your knowledge to seem smarter, at times.

19. 19
9. You believe that it is okay to lie in certain situations.
10. You were completely truthful when answering the questions given
prior to this survey.
11. You feel pressure to be more knowledgeable than individuals
that are of the opposite gender of you.

20. 20
REFERENCES
Cody, M. J., & O'Hair, H. D. (1983). NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION AND DECEPTION:DIFFERENCES IN
DECEPTION CUES DUE TO GENDER AND COMMUNICATOR DOMINANCE. Communication
Monographs,50(3), 175-192.
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life.
Journal
Of Personality And Social Psychology, 70(5), 979-995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979
DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Telling ingratiating lies: Effects of target sexand target
attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 48(5),
1191-1203. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1191
Fabrication [Def 2]. In Dictionary.com. Retrieved December 3, 2014,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fabrication?s=t.
Fisher, T. (2013). Gender Roles and Pressure to be Truthful: The Bogus Pipeline Modifies Gender Differences in
Sexual but Not Non-sexual Behavior. Sex Roles, 401-414. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from EbscoHost.
Hogue, M., Levashina, J., & Hang, H. (2011). Will I Fake It? The Interplay of Gender, Machiavellianism, and
Self-monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews. Journal of Business Ethics, 399-411. Retrieved
November 18, 2014, from EbscoHost.
Mueller, J. E., & Reichert, T. (2009). MORE ENGAGED BUT STILL UNINFORMED? 2004 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION COVERAGE IN CONSUMER MAGAZINES POPULAR WITH YOUNG ADULTS. Journalism
&
Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(3), 563-577.
Lie¹ [Def 1]. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved December 3, 2014, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t.
Lie². In Thesaurus.com. Retrieved December 3, 2014, http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/lie?s=t.
Landoll, R., Schwartz-Mette, R., Rose, A., & Prinstein, M. (2011). Girls' and Boys' Disclosure about Problems as a
Predictor of Changes in Depressive Symptoms Over Time. Sex Roles, (65), 410-420. Retrieved November 17,
2014, from EbscoHost.
O'Hair, D., Cody, M. J., Goss, B., & Krayer, K. J. (1988). The Effect of Gender, Deceit Orientation and
Communicator
Style on Macro-Assessments ofHonesty.Communication Quarterly, 36(2), 77-93.
Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, T. R. (2008). Lie Acceptability: A Construct and Measure.Communication Research
Reports, 25(4), 282-288. doi:10.1080/08824090802440170
Robinson, K. A., Obler, L. K., Boone, R. T., Adamjee, R., & Anderson,J. (1998). Gender and Truthfulness in Daily
Life Situations. Sex Roles, 38(9/10), 821-831.
Ward, D., & Beck, W. (2001). Gender and Dishonesty.The Journal of Social Psychology,333-339. Retrieved
November 18, 2014, from EbscoHost.
Witt, Melissa, and Wendy Wood.2010. "Self-regulation of Gendered Behavior in Everyday Life." Sex Roles 62, no.
9/10: 635-646.SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed November 11, 2014).