Group Decis Negot (2010) 19:345366 DOI 10.

1007/s10726-009-9168-8

Deception and its Detection Under Synchronous and Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication
Judee K. Burgoon Fang Chen Douglas P. Twitchell

Published online: 25 July 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract As part of an ongoing research program investigating features of computer-mediated communication (CMC) that affect deception and its detection, an experiment was conducted to test the impact of synchronicity on communication processes, credibility assessments, deception detection, and team performance. At issue is whether various forms of CMC enable or deter successful deception. Synchronous (real-time) CMC was hypothesized to foster more involvement and mutuality during communication, more credibility for team members, and hence less detection of deception when it was present. Team performance was hypothesized to suffer under deception due to deceivers capitalizing on synchronous communication to build their credibility. Two-person teams conducted a decision-making task in real time (synchronous) or over the course of several days (asynchronous). In half of the pairs, one party was asked to be deceptive. The results indicated that participants in the synchronous mode were more involved, perceived more mutuality, and viewed their partners in a more favorable light, than participants in the asynchronous mode. Deceivers portrayed themselves as somewhat more credible than truthtellers. However, they were not perceived as more persuasive than truth-tellers. Participants in the deceptive con-

J. K. Burgoon (B ) Center for the Management of Information, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA e-mail: jburgoon@cmi.arizona.edu F. Chen Department of Finance and Accounting, I.H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V4, Canada e-mail: chenf@cc.umanitoba.ca D. P. Twitchell Department of Management Information Systems, School of Information Technology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA e-mail: dtwitch@ilstu.edu

123

346

J. K. Burgoon et al.

dition made poorer decisions than participants in the truthful condition. Implications for CMC and future study are discussed. Keywords Synchronicity Deception Interpersonal communication Computer mediated communication Distributed team work Communication process Communication outcome 1 Introduction The globalization of business and advancement of information technology has brought increasing reliance on distributed teamwork, with concomitant reductions in faceto-face (FtF) interactions and increased dependence on computer-mediated communication (CMC) among team members. For virtual teams (those whose members are geographically dispersed), reliance on CMC can affect not only the nature of the communication that transpires among team members but also the interpersonal relationships that are forged and the quality of performance that is achieved. The investigation reported here examined the interrelationships among communication patterns, interpersonal relationships, and team performance when using same-time versus different-time forms of communication. 1.1 The Challenges of CMC CMC creates special challenges for engaging in effective communication, gauging the character of other team members, and attaining high-quality task outcomes. As Walther et al. (2005) note, virtual teams encounter numerous challenges due to their dispersion and communication limitations, which can impede their effectiveness, or at least require great efforts to accommodate to the virtual environment and virtual partners (p. 1). One such challenge is assessing whether others are entering team activities in a cooperative manner or with ulterior motives; whether they are truthful or deceptive; whether they are knowledgeable or misrepresenting their expertise or information; in short, whether they are credible or not. Because team members are less likely to know one another well and lack rst-hand observations of each others daily work, the communication process itself becomes the primary vehicle for sizing up how trustworthy and credible other team members are. Several studies have indicated that distributed work produces weaker interpersonal relationships and less trust than does face-to-face work (e.g., Burgoon et al. 2002b; Grifn et al. 2001). Some have even been so bold as to assert that trust is beyond the reach of virtual (distributed) teams or that the form of trust that develops is a fragile proxy for real, persistent trust (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998). 1.2 Synchronicity and Interactivity But the particular form that CMC takes should make a difference. One especially salient factor may be synchronicity and its associated degree of interactivity.

123

Deception and its Detection

347

Synchronicity refers to the timing of message exchange within a given time frame. In FtF and CMC, when message exchange occurs in real time, it is referred to as synchronous, or same-time, communication; when time lapses separate conversational turns, it is referred to as asynchronous, or different-time, communication. Instant messaging, text chat, MOOs, and MUDs are different forms of synchronous communication. Email and electronic bulletin or message boards are forms of asynchronous communication. Synchronous communication is considered more interactive than asynchronous communication (Burgoon et al. 2002c). Interactive forms of communication are characterized by, among other qualities, higher degrees of involvement, mutuality, perceived similarity, identication, and interaction coordination than noninteractive forms of communication. In the context of online conversation, involvement refers to participants cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement in the interaction. Involvement may be evident in the degree of participativeness and frequency of communication or detachment and nonresponsiveness by interactants. Mutuality is an umbrella term for a constellation of perceptions related to feelings of connectedness, receptivity, and mutual understanding that contribute to a sense of groupness or relationship among participants. Mutuality occurs to the extent that individuals coorient to one another and expect sufcient similarities in experiences and language use to make communication possible (Markova et al. 1995). Qualitatively greater degrees of mutuality are what give rise to feelings of psychological connection and social presence. Perceived similarity, or homophily, is an extension of the mutuality concept insofar as there are some minimal perceptions of common ground. Similarity may also capture feelings of shared values, background, beliefs, behavioral practices, and communication styles. Identication concerns the extent to which participants believe they have sufcient knowledge of co-interactants to form well-dened rather than nebulous identities for them. Interaction coordination concerns the extent to which participants exhibit synchronized, meshed, and coherent message exchanges. Threaded message exchanges (in which one persons messages are related to and tailored to anothers messages) show higher coordination than unthreaded postings. Communication media labeled as interactive carry that moniker because they are thought to permit, restrict, or prohibit achievement of interactive communication processes. That is, synchronous media afford (although they do not require) more mental and behavioral engagement; more perceived connection, social presence, and common ground; more awareness of the unique qualities of one anothers identities; and more potential for smooth, synchronized interaction.

1.3 The Impact of Interactivity under Deceptive and Nondeceptive Circumstances The degree of interactivity in the message exchange process should inuence how team members regard one another and how well they perform their tasks. For example, the principle of interactivity from interpersonal deception theory holds that human communication processes and outcomes vary systematically with the degree of interactivity that is involved (Buller et al. 1996; Burgoon et al. 1999, 2002a). Interactivity can be a force for good or ill; it is, itself, value-neutral even though the outcomes of highor low-interactive exchanges may be value-laden. In the case of synchronous versus

123

348

J. K. Burgoon et al.

asynchronous communication media, the questions is whether the medium has benecial or detrimental effects on team relations and performance; whether the medium inuences the truthfulness of the messages and information that are exchanged. Implicit in most CMC research is an assumption that people are trustworthy, their communication is truthful, and their discourse is cooperative (see Grice 1989). Yet there are many circumstances in which group members may intentionally give misleading, faulty, and invalid information if they have hidden agendas, have vested interests that differ from the group, or want to hide the fact that they lack knowledge on certain topics. Research has indicated that as much as one-third of daily conversations include deception in the forms of concealment, ambiguity, exaggeration, and outright lies (Buller et al. 1996; Ekman 1996). Deception, then, is one of the threats to successful computer-mediated collaborative work. If synchronous CMC enables those with ulterior motives to manipulate others, introduce faulty information, and conceal their hidden agendas, then synchronous media may be used nefariously to promote trust, gain credibility, and sabotage team performance. This is the issue that framed the current investigation and program of research in which it is embedded. How synchronicity in communication relates to deception is open to two plausible but competing speculations. One possibility is that high interactivity reduces the time and opportunities for deceivers to monitor and modify their communication in response to any signs of skepticism; telltale signs of deception should heighten team members vigilance and their ability to detect invalid information accurately. An alternative possibility is that synchronous CMC fosters a truth biasa tendency to overestimate truthfulness in anothers communication (McCornack and Parks 1986)born out of the sense of involvement and feelings of connection, camaraderie, and similarity that are engendered. Deceivers may capitalize on the truth bias and perceived team solidarity to portray themselves as credible, to garner trust, to make it more difcult for their team members to detect faulty information, to persuade nave team members to accept bad arguments and evidence, and hence, to undermine decision-making (Buller et al. 1996; Burgoon et al. 2002a). At the opposite end of the interactivity spectrum, low interactivity associated with asynchronous communication might engender less trust and weaker relationships that paradoxically cause potential targets of deception to become more suspicious and thus to increase their accuracy in detecting deception. Or the time delays between message transmissions might introduce a level of detachment and objectivity that facilitates thoughtful deliberation by nondeceptive team members, again promoting higher quality decision-making. On the ip side, asynchronous communication might also give deceivers enough time to reect upon the current situation and to modify their communication accordingly, thus making deception detection more difcult and leaving the decision-making process more vulnerable to misinformation and manipulation than in synchronous interchanges. Two previous studies by Burgoon et al. (2002c, 2003) inform this issue. The rst study (Burgoon et al. 2002c) investigated effects of synchronicity and proximity on group communication. Results showed that synchronous interaction produced greater interactivity (e.g., involvement and mutuality) than asynchronous interaction. Synchronous interactants were also judged as more composed than asynchronous ones. The second study (Burgoon et al. 2003) investigated how four communication

123

Deception and its Detection

349

modalities (FtF, audio-video, audio, and text) affect involvement, mutuality, trust, and truth estimates in truthful and deceptive communication. Trust and truth estimates were found to be positively correlated with involvement and mutuality in both truthful and deceptive conditions. This implies that deceivers may capitalize on the involvement and mutuality present in interactive communication modes to foster trust and impressions of truthfulness. The current experiment replicates and extends these previous studies by investigating whether synchronicity fosters interactivity in the form of involvement, mutuality, and similarity. As well, it examines how synchronous and asynchronous communication affect credibility and team performance under deceptive and nondeceptive conditions. Like the second study (Burgoon et al. 2003), the current experiment was guided by interpersonal deception theory and the principle of interactivity, from which it was derived. 1.4 Hypotheses and Research Questions To recapitulate, synchronicity as a structural feature of new communication media should inuence the degree of interactivity exhibited in the communication process, which in turn should affect credibility and team performance. Credibility is a multidimensional construct that refers to social judgments regarding anothers ethos or believability (Buller et al. 1996; McCroskey et al. 1974). Among the dimensions that have been associated with it are judgments related to character or trust, expertise or competence, sociability or likability, composure, extroversion or dominance, and persuasiveness. Because McCroskey and Young (1981) argued that its two most central components are trust and expertise, we opted for greater parsimony by creating two composite groupings related to (1) socially oriented judgments (trust, composure and sociability), hereafter referred to as trust for shorthand, and (2) task-oriented judgments (expertise, dominance, and persuasion), hereafter referred to as persuasiveness. The performance outcome of interest was decision quality. Figure 1 displays the input-process-output model undergirding the hypotheses and research questions, elaborated next. 1.5 Effects of Synchronicity and Deceit on Interactivity The rst set of hypotheses and research questions tested the impact of communication format and deception on interactivity. As regards synchronicity, the most distinctive

R3 R4

Synchronicity

Deception

Credibility I: Trust Credibility II: Persuasiveness Decision Quality

R2

H1

R1

H2

H4 H3

Interactivity

Fig. 1 Relationships among synchronicity, deception, interactivity and team outcomes

123

350

J. K. Burgoon et al.

difference between synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC is the availability of immediate feedback. Participants interacting synchronously, i.e., in real time, can obtain immediate feedback from co-interactants and thus adjust their messages accordingly. This temporal immediacy, as with other forms of immediacy, should foster greater interactivity in the form of greater involvement, mutuality, and similarity (Burgoon et al. 2002c; Walther et al. 2009). When participants communicate with one another in real time, they jointly construct the conversation, regarding themselves and their partners as integral entities in the exchange. They perceive that they have mutual concerns and common understanding of the issues under discussion. Burgoon et al. (2002c) tested the relationship between synchronicity and group process in a study of distributed collaboration. Results supported the hypothesis that group members working under a synchronous communication format exhibit more mutuality, pleasantness, involvement, and task-oriented communication than those working under a comparable asynchronous format. As hypothesized, such communication was also judged as more appropriate and expected. The current investigation aimed to replicate this nding with a different communication format. In Burgoons study, group size was four or ve and communication occurred in a proximal, synchronous condition via text chat, in a distributed, synchronous condition using speakerphones, or distributed, asynchronous format using noninteractive text. In the current case, teams consisted of distributed two-person groups (to allow manipulation of truth or deception by one member) who communicated using synchronous or asynchronous text. The rst hypothesis predicted that synchronous media promote interactive communication. H 1 Synchronous text-based interaction produces more perceived involvement, mutuality, and similarity than asynchronous text-based interaction. A second experiment (Burgoon et al. 2003) supported the hypothesis that deception lowers perceptions of deceiver involvement, similarity, and understanding. However, the study only investigated synchronous communication, leaving open to question whether there is an interaction between deception and synchronicity in affecting communication processes. Hence, we posed the following hypothesis and research question. H 2 Deceptive communication produces less perceived involvement, mutuality, and similarity than truthful communication. R 1 Does deception differentially affect involvement, mutuality, and similarity under synchronous versus asynchronous communication? 1.6 Effects of Synchronicity and Interactivity on Outcomes Human relationships are dened through communication practices (Watzlawick et al. 1967). To the extent that virtual team members display emotional, cognitive, and behavioral engagement with the team and its activities; to the extent that their interactions are characterized by mutuality and perceived common ground; they should come to view one another as credible. Burgoons study (Burgoon et al. 2003) supported the

123

Deception and its Detection

351

hypothesis that involvement and mutuality measures were positively correlated with trust and truth estimates. Other research has found that displays of involvement are perceived to communicate intimacy, sociability, composure, and dominance (Burgoon and Le Poire 1999; Le Poire et al. 2003). This hypothesis was expanded in the current study to include a broader array of social judgments related to credibility. H 3 Greater interactivity in the form of involvement, mutuality and similarity is associated with more favorable judgments of team members credibility on social-oriented judgments (trust, composure and sociability) and task-oriented judgments (expertise, dominance, and persuasion). The theory of synchronicity (Dennis and Valacich 1999) species that teamwork may involve two communication processes: conveyance and convergence. Different communication features affect these two processes differently. Two salient communication features are immediacy of feedback and parallelism. Parallelism refers to the number of simultaneous conversations that can exist effectively (Dennis and Valacich 1999). Communication environments that support high immediacy of feedback and low parallelism facilitate the convergence process. Communication environments that support low immediacy of feedback and high parallelism facilitate the conveyance process. Usually people have different purposes for communication: sharing information, making sense for certain situations, solving problems, and making decisions. Except for sharing information about very simple facts, people need to engage both conveyance and convergence processes. Holding parallelism constant, either synchronous or asynchronous communication can support conveyance at a somewhat identical level of efciency and effectiveness. However, it is much easier to accomplish convergent processes in synchronous mode, since people have to clarify, discuss, and negotiate to obtain agreement, and availability of immediate feedback facilitates clarication, discussion, and negotiation. When there is no invalid information, and no deception, people communicating in synchronous mode tend to obtain higher quality of decision making than people who communicate in a comparable asynchronous mode. On the other hand, when there is invalid information and deception, synchronous mode fosters more involvement and perceived (though faulty) mutual understanding. Deceivers may take advantage of these perceptions to portray themselves as credible, and trustworthy. Resultant truth bias should detract from receivers ability to detect deception accurately. H 4 Higher interactivity in the form of involvement, mutuality, and similarity fosters higher decision quality making when there is no reason to suspect invalid information, deception, or ulterior motives, but impairs decision-making when deceit and invalid information are introduced. The input-process-output model guiding this investigation proposes that synchronicity and deception exert indirect effects on social judgments and group performance as mediated by the degree of interactivity in the communication process. But in addition to this indirect effect, synchronicity and deception conceivably may exert direct effects on social judgments and group performance and may interact with each other. Absent strong foundations for posing hypotheses regarding these relationships, we posited three additional research questions:

123

352

J. K. Burgoon et al.

R 2 Does deception affect social judgments and decision quality directly? R 3 Does synchronicity affect social judgments and decision quality directly? R 4 Does deception have the same impact on decision quality under synchronous and asynchronous communication? 2 Method 2.1 Participants Participants (N = 126; 80 males, 46 females) were undergraduate students enrolled in a business course at a southwestern university who received extra class credit for participating in a study of how people conduct decision-making tasks under different communication formats. Participants were randomly assigned to pairs, to roles as Partner A or B, and to synchronicity condition. Among those designated Partner A, half were randomly enlisted as accomplices to engage in deception. Due to some attrition and recording problems, cell sizes were not even distributed across conditions. There were 19 pairs in the synchronous-deceptive condition, 18 pairs in the synchronoustruthful condition, 13 pairs in the asynchronous-deceptive condition, and 13 pairs in the asynchronous-truthful condition. 2.2 Experimental Procedures and Conditions The experiment took place in a Communication Research Laboratory that consisted of multiple interaction rooms. Each room was equipped with a large circular conference table divided into quarter-rounds, with each quarter-round separated by a large soundproofed divider, to create four cubicles. Each cubicle was equipped with a mobile computer station. Participants nished all experimental tasks online. Upon arrival, participants were seated in a cubicle before a computer, where they completed consent forms and received all task instructions, the task scenario, and pre-discussion questionnaires. Communication in the experiment was anonymous. Participants did not meet their partners face-to-face and did not know who their partners were. They communicated with their partners by text only. In the synchronous mode, participants discussed the task by using Microsoft Netmeeting text chat, and the entire experiment took place in the Communication Research Laboratory. Sessions ranged from 50 to 80 min to nish. In the asynchronous mode, participants discussed the task by using an electronic message board system developed by the Center for the Management of Information at the University of Arizona. After participants completed the initial ranking, they logged into the message board system. If they were the rst partners who logged in the system, they posted their initial rankings and some rationale for their rankings for their partners to review. They then left the laboratory and completed the rest of the experiment in four and a half days from locations of their choosing. They were permitted to log into the message board system anytime, anyplace as long as they had Internet access, with

123

Deception and its Detection

353

the constraint that they needed to complete their discussions with their partners and arrive at a nal ranking before 1:00 pm on the fth day. After 1:00 pm on the fth day, they completed their nal ranking and post-interaction questionnaire. The decision-making task was a modied version of the Desert Survival Problem (DSP; Lafferty and Eady 1974). DSP asked participants to imagine that their jeep had crashed in the Kuwaiti desert, that there was no potable water, and that some items from the wreckage were salvageable. Participants were told to rank the 12 salvageable items (e.g., a mirror, a compass, a knife) for their survival value. The DSP was the appropriate task for this investigation. First, it allowed a fair amount of experimental control by structuring the task; second, it provided a scenario for natural conversation and enough materials for discussion; third, participants needed to engage communication conveyance and convergence to make the decision. Prior to interacting with their partners, everyone read a detailed document on what is needed to survive in the desert. The information, which was taken from an Army eld manual, was to form the basis of the rankings and discussions. Participants completed their initial rankings independently, then discussed with their team member their respective rankings and reasons for their rankings toward the goal of arriving at a nal, consensual ranking. They then completed their nal rankings independently and completed post-discussion questionnaires. All participants in the truthful condition and Partner B in the deceptive condition received the exact same instructions and questionnaires. Partner A in the deceptive condition received separate instructions and an additional set of questionnaire items to assess whether he or she conducted the deception manipulation. Deceivers were told that their assignment was to deceive and give invalid, misleading information to their partners. Specifically, after reading the general task instructions, they received the following additional instructions: In addition, a major objective of this research is to learn how well people can detect faulty, misleading, and deceptive information under these communication conditions. There are often situations in which it is NOT in ones best interest to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truthfor instance, to present your best image, to avoid unpleasant circumstances, to protect loved ones or to protect your country. A certain level of communication skill is necessary to be able to adapt to these situations. You will be putting these skills to the test in your interactions with your team member(s). We will be asking you to mislead your partner so that we can determine how well your partner can detect deceit. If you have any objections to performing this role, please notify the assistant at this time. After reading the document, Imperative Information for Surviving in the Desert, they were then told that instead of using the information to arrive at a consensus ranking with their team member, they were to take a position OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE EXPERTS RECOMMEND and CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. To reinforce this manipulation, they were told that their task was to provide incorrect, misleading and deceptive information to their partner and that they should (1) advocate leaving the jeep rather than staying

123

354 Table 1 Reliabilities, means and standard deviations for all dependent measures Variable Alpha Mean Sync 5.67 5.02 4.30 5.28 5.42 5.55 4.22 4.75 4.50 6.11 SD Mean Asyn 5.14 4.42 4.00 4.87 4.88 4.94 3.90 4.43 4.33 6.63 SD Mean Truth 5.44 6.64 4.15 5.13 5.02 5.13 4.39 4.60 4.27 NA SD

J. K. Burgoon et al.

Mean Decept 5.46 4.89 4.20 5.09 5.37 5.46 4.46 4.64 3.90 NA

SD

Mutuality Involvement Similarity Trust Composure Sociability Dominance Expertise Persuasion Deceivers motivation

.90 .88 .85 .79 .81 .78 .69 .86 .74 .63

1.17 1.02 1.30 1.04 1.10 1.15 1.32 1.00 1.32 1.86

1.36 1.19 1.38 1.23 1.00 1.26 1.10 1.23 1.10 2.00

1.29 1.10 1.29 1.06 1.12 1.19 0.96 1.01 1.08 NA

1.28 1.14 1.39 1.22 1.04 1.25 1.13 1.20 1.35 NA

at the crash site as the best course of action, which would require taking equipment to nd their way (e.g., the compass and map), (2) argue that communication devices such as the rearview mirror and ashlight are unlikely to be useful in the desert, and (3) propose shedding all unnecessary clothing (e.g., rain-gear) and other gear to make walking easier. They were also told that there are many ways of being untruthful, including telling outright lies, exaggerating, being vague, indirect, unclear, and ambiguous, or withholding, omitting, and avoiding discussing relevant information; in short, they could use their own techniques and communication style to deviate from the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Finally, they were told that their team member was unaware that they were receiving special instructions and that it was crucial not to reveal this to their team member during or after the discussion. 2.3 Dependent Variables 2.3.1 Interactivity measures Interactivity indicators included perceived involvement, mutuality, and similarity. Involvement refers to participants level of cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement in the interaction. Perceived involvement was assessed with six Likert-format items (e.g., highly involvednot at all involved). Mutuality was measured as the extent to which participants felt connection, interdependence, understanding, and solidarity with one another. Five items were selected to assess mutuality (e.g., promoted cooperationdid not promote cooperation). Perceived similarity consisted of three scale items taken from McCroskey et al. (1974) homophily scale (e.g., very similar to mevery different from me). The complete questionnaire appears in Appendix A. Coefcient alpha reliabilities, shown in Table 1, ranged from .85 to .90. 2.3.2 Credibility Measures As noted previously, credibility is a multidimensional construct that should be operationalized at minimum with dimensions of trust (which includes such character-related

123

Deception and its Detection

355

facets as being truthful, trustworthy, sincere, responsible, and reliable) and competence (which includes such facets as expertise, experience, and intelligence) but may also include dimensions such as sociability (likability, friendliness), and extroversion or dominance (Burgoon et al. 2002c). Because dominance in turn has been shown to consist of components related to interactional control, dynamism, persuasiveness, and relaxation, and because dominance is closely associated with credibility (Burgoon et al. 1998), we chose to operationalize credibility broadly as including components of trust, sociability, composure, expertise, conversational dominance, and persuasiveness. The rst three dimensions were combined to represent the more socially-oriented elements of credibility, whereas the latter three represented the more task-relevant aspects of credibility. These two composites were labeled as Credibility I (trust) and Credibility II (persuasiveness). A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation conrmed that with a two-factor solution, the three dimensions of trust, sociability, and composure had their primary loadings on one factor and the dimensions of expertise, dominance, and persuasiveness had their primary loadings on the second factor, with total variance accounted for at 78%. The reliabilities for the six separate dimensions are shown in Table 1. Reliabilities for the two composite measures were .84 for each.

2.4 Manipulation Checks To verify that deceivers were in fact deceptive, were motivated to fulll their instructions to deceive, and felt successful in doing so, Partners A in deceptive conditions rated on a 0 to 10 scale how truthful they were (where 0 = completely untruthful and 10 = completely truthful). They also rated on a 0 (not at all important) to 10 (very important) scale how important it was to them to (1) give convincing answers and (2) succeed at being believed. Lastly, they estimated their deception success with the item, how successful were you in deceiving your partner about the true best decisions? Partner Bs perceived suspicion of their partners truthfulness and motivation to detect deceit was measured with ve items, rated on 17 scales, that measured their level of suspicion (e.g., I was suspicious of what my partner said) and motivation to detect deceit (e.g., I watched carefully to see what my partner said). They also rated how truthful they thought their partner was on a 010 scale.

2.5 Task Outcome Measures Task performance was operationalized with two measures. Decision quality was computed as the mean absolute discrepancy between participant ranking and correct ranking. The smaller the score, the better the quality of decision. Decision change was indicated by how much participants changed their rankings toward the correct ranking. It was calculated as the change in the difference between (a) each persons pre-ranking and partner pre-ranking and (b) each persons post-ranking and partner post-ranking. The score is a relative value instead of an absolute value. Positive scores indicated improved quality of decisions, whereas negative scores indicated movement away from the best decisions.

123

356

J. K. Burgoon et al.

3 Results 3.1 Manipulation Checks Although deceivers reported being slightly truthful (M = 5.70, where 5 is the midpoint), they were fairly motivated to succeed in convincing their partners (M = 6.93) and being perceived as believable (M = 6.96). They also perceived themselves to have successfully deceived their partners (M = 6.04). Deceived partners were generally not suspicious of their partners communication truthfulness (M = 2.03) and rated their partners as very truthful (M = 7.68). Synchronicity had no significant effect on deceivers motivation to deceive, F (1, 30) = 0.59, p = 0.45, nor on Partner Bs suspicion, F (1, 29) = 2.93, p = 0.10. Thus, the deception induction was considered to be successful and to have uniform effects across conditions.

3.2 Relationships of Synchronicity to Communication Processes H1, that synchronicity fosters higher interactivity, was tested in a between-dyad multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with synchronicity as the independent variable and the three interactivity measures as the dependent measures. Synchronicity produced a significant multivariate effect, F (3, 120) = 3.36, p = 0.02, partial 2 = 0.08. Accompanying univariate analyses indicated that synchronous participants felt their partners showed more mutuality, F (1, 122) = 5.50, p = 0.02, partial 2 = .04, and more involvement, F (1, 122) = 9.95, p = 0.002, partial 2 = .07, than asynchronous participants did; the effect for similarity was weaker, F (1, 122)= 1.85, p = 0.22, partial 2 = .02. The result can be interpreted that participants interacting synchronously felt their team partners were more involved in the communication and evoked more mutuality than did participants interacting asynchronously. Hypothesis 1 was supported. H2 predicted that deceivers are perceived as less interactive than truthtellers. The appropriate analysis required analyzing the communication of Partner A as judged by Partner B. A 2 2 factorial MANOVA indicated that deception did not have an effect on interactivity, F (3, 57) = 1.27, p = 0.29, partial 2 = 0.06. Only involvement showed a trend toward significance in the univariate analyses and in the opposite direction (of deceivers showing more, not less, involvement). Thus, the results failed to support H2. R1 posed the question of whether synchronicity differentially affects interactivity under deceptive and nondeceptive conditions. The same MANOVA as tested H2 failed to produce an interaction between synchronicity and deception on interactivity, F (3,57) = 0.69, p = 0.56, partial 2 = 0.03. Thus, deception did not moderate synchronicity effects.

3.3 Relationships of Communication Processes to Outcomes H3 predicted that greater interactivity is associated with more favorable social judgments. The bivariate correlations among all these variables are shown in Table 2. All correlations were significant and positive. Hypothesis 3 was supported. Greater

123

Deception and its Detection Table 2 Correlations among interactivity and social judgment measures

357

Mutuality Involvement Similarity Trust Composure Sociability Expertise Persuasion Dominan Mutuality Involvement Similarity Trust Composure Sociability Expertise Persuasion Dominance 1.00 .69* .58* .60* .65* .55* .56* .31* .42*

1.00 .55* .72* .71* .62* .69* .46* .70*

1.00 .49* .38* .47* .47* .35* .45*

1.00 .62* .64* .61* .38* .49*

1.00 .61* .59* .30* .59*

1.00 .49* .24* .55*

1.00 .57* .63*

1.00 .57*

1.00

* p < 0.01, one-tailed

involvement, mutuality, and similarity are associated with being perceived as more credible on both trust-related and persuasiveness elements. H4 specied that in truthful conditions, the correlations among interactivity measures (i.e., involvement, mutuality, and similarity) and post-discussion decisions are positive but in deceptive conditions are negative. The test was conducted by splitting the le based on condition and then conducting the correlation analyses. Correlations with decision quality were all nonsignificant. Correlations with decision change indicated that in the truthful condition, the more perceived similarity, the more partners changed their decisions toward the correct ranking, r (60) = .23, p = .04, one-tailed; in the deception condition, there was a near-significant relationship between involvement and decision change such that those who were more involved changed less, r (60) = .20, p = .06, one-tailed. Thus, H4 received at best modest support. When deception was not present, participants who felt similarity to their partners changed more toward the best decision; when deception was present, greater involvement was negatively related to change, suggesting that greater engagement with deceivers enabled deceivers to deter partners from changing toward the best decision.

3.4 Relationships of Synchronicity and Deception to Outcomes R2 through R4 investigated whether deception and synchronicity, separately or jointly, affect outcomes directly. Results were analyzed three ways. First, we conducted a MANOVA with deception and synchronicity as the independent variables and the two credibility composites, as judged by Partner B, as the dependent measures. Next, we conducted separate MANOVAs with the three Credibility I measures as the dependent variables in the one analysis and the three Credibility II measures as the dependent variables in the second analysis. Finally, the analyses on the composite measures were repeated but as multivariate analyses of covariance to determine if covarying out the effects of interactivity eliminated any effects. This nal analysis was intended to determine if effects of synchronicity and deception on outcome measures were spurious and due to the mediating effects the communication process variables. The MANOVA on the composite measures produced a significant effect for deception, F (2, 57) = 4.09, p = 0.02, partial 2 = 0.13, with a significant univariate effect

123

358

J. K. Burgoon et al.

(a)
7.0

Effects on Credibility and Persuasion

6.0

5.0

5.4 5.2 5.3 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.1 4.3 4.4 3.9

Ratings

MEASURES
1 Trust 2 Composure 3 Sociability 4 Dominance

4.0

3.0

2.0 5 Expertise 1.0 Synchronous Asynchronous 6 Persuasiveness

(b)
7.0

Effects on Credibility and Persuasion

6.0
5.4 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.2 3.8

5.0

5.1

5.3

Ratings

4.7 4.7

4.6 4.2

MEASURES
1 Trust 2 Composure 3 Sociability 4 Dominance

4.0

3.0

2.0 5 Expertise 1.0 Deception Truth 6 Persuasiveness

Fig. 2 Effects of a synchronicity and b deception on social judgments

on the trust composite, F (1, 58) = 4.56, p = 0.04, partial 2 = 0.07, and on the persuasiveness composite, F (2,57) = 3.87, p = 0.01, partial 2 = 0.17. Univariate analyses revealed that deceivers rather than truthtellers were judged as more credible on trust-related judgments (M = 5.28) than were truthtellers (M = 4.76). Follow-up analyses for the Credibility I dimensions revealed that differences were more evident on sociability and composure than on trust per se (see Fig. 2). As for the Credibility II results, they were most inuenced by differences in dominance, F (1, 59) = 4.44, p = 0.04, partial 2 = .07. Deceptive team members were perceived as more dominant (M =

123

Deception and its Detection

359

4.65) than truthful team members (M = 4.24). Thus, deceivers successfully portrayed themselves as more credible and persuasive, especially in terms of being sociable, composed, and dominant. The multivariate effect for synchronicity on the two composite measures was also near-significant, F (2, 57) = 2.35, p = 0.10, partial 2 = 0.08, again with a significant univariate effect on the trust composite, F (1, 58) = 4.10, p = 0.04, partial 2 = 0.07, but not the persuasiveness composite. These results only included Person B data. On the assumption that even though responses from Person A accomplices would be biased as regards deception effects, their data could still produce valid indications of the effects of synchronicity, we repeated the analysis with Person A data added to the analysis of synchronicity. A significant main effect emerged, F(3, 120) = 3.33, p = 0.02, partial 2 = .08 (see Fig. 2). Univariate analysis indicated that synchronous participants felt more trust for their partners, F(1, 122) = 3.93, p = 0.05, partial 2 = .03, and viewed their partners as more composed, F(1, 122) = 7.98, p = 0.006, partial 2 = .06, and sociable, F (1, 122) = 7.81, p = 0.006, partial 2 = .06 than asynchronous participants did. Synchronicity did not affect the task-oriented credibility measures, F (3, 120) = 1.02, p = 0.39, partial 2 = 0.03. When the three interactivity measures of involvement, mutuality, and similarity were added as covariates to the analyses, the multivariate deception effect remained significant in the analysis with Credibility I and Credibility II composites as the dependent measures (p = .045), but neither univariate composite was significant. In the analyses employing the individual credibility dimensions, none of the analyses remained significant. Neither was the synchronicity effect significant when both Person A and Person B data were included. These results indicate that deception and synchronicity largely exert their inuence on social judgments through communication processes rather than directly. To test effects on decision making, factorial analyses of variance were conducted with synchronicity and deception as the independent variables and decision quality or decision change among Partners B (i.e., those who were the nave subjects and targets of any deception) as the dependent measures. Synchronicity did not affect nal decision quality, F (1,59) = 0.43, p = 0.52, partial 2 < 0.01, but deception did, F (1, 59) = 4.47, p = 0.04, partial 2 = 0.07. The interaction of deception and synchronicity was not significant, F (1, 59) = 0.001, p = 0.98, partial 2 < 0.01. Participants with deceptive partners had poorer post-discussion decision quality (M = 3.75, SD = 0.74) than participants with truthful partners (M = 3.32, SD = 0.82) (see Fig. 3; smaller value indicates better decision quality). Because the means for pre-discussion decision quality suggested that participants in the deceptive condition may have started with worse decision quality, further analysis was conducted to see whether the difference in pre-discussion decision quality between the truthful and deceptive conditions was significant. Results revealed that it was not, F (1, 59) = 2.23, p = 0.14, partial 2 = 0.04. Deception, then, did result in worse decisions. As for decision change, synchronicity had an impact, F (1, 59) = 5.13, p = 0.03, partial 2 = 0.08. Synchronous Partners B changed their post-discussion decision for slightly better quality (M = 0.05, SD = 0.62), whereas asynchronous partners changed their post-discussion decision for worse quality (M = 0.42, SD = 1.01). By contrast, the test for deception failed to show a significant difference on decision change due

123

360

J. K. Burgoon et al.

Effects on Decision Quality

4.0

Discrepancy from Best Decision

3.7 3.0 3.3

3.8 3.4

2.0

1.0

DECEPTION
Deception

0.0 Synchronous Asynchronous

Truth

Fig. 3 Effects of synchronicity on decision quality

to deception, F (1, 59) = 0.30, p = 0.59, partial 2 < 0.01, although deceived partners did have poorer post-discussion decisions (M = 3.75, SD = 0.74) than pre-discussion decisions (M = 3.55, SD = 0.87). Thus, changes in decisions were adversely affected by the asynchronous mode of communication, and may have registered a slightly negative impact due to deception. When the interactivity covariates were added to the decision quality analyses, the effects of synchronicity and deception remained significant. These results indicate that communication mode and deception inuence task performance above and beyond the effects rendered by the communication process. 4 Discussion Working from the principle of interactivity, this experiment examined the general postulate that features of communication interfaces affect degree of interactivity in communication processes, and that interactivity in turn systematically affects such communication outcomes as credibility and team performance. Interactivity in communication processes was instantiated as involvement, mutuality, and similarity. Credibility was instantiated as socially oriented judgments related to trust (i.e., composure, sociability, and trust), and task-oriented judgments related to persuasiveness (i.e., expertise, dominance, and persuasion). Team performance was instantiated as postdiscussion decision quality and decision change from pre-discussion to post-discussion quality. Several though not all aspects of the proposed model were supported. We take up the inuence of the two exogenous variables of synchronicity and deception in turn. 4.1 Effects of Synchronicity As hypothesized, synchronicity affected interactivity. Team members experienced more mutuality and involvement in synchronous than in asynchronous communication.

123

Deception and its Detection

361

Communicating in real time promoted a far greater sense of cognitive and behavioral engagement, of common ground and understanding, and of that elusive yet powerful sense of connection than did communicating at different times. For scholars, designers, and users alike, results conrmed the fear that when separation in space is accompanied by separation in time, social presence is indeed a casualty. Ties among team members weaken, and members experience greater detachment that may translate into less tolerance of team members shortcomings. Synchronicity also directly affected the trust-related aspects of credibility. Synchronous participants felt more trust for their partners and viewed their partners as more composed and sociable than asynchronous participants did. Curiously, synchronicity did not have similar effects on the task-oriented credibility judgments of expertise, dominance, and persuasiveness. Apparently, team members were able to achieve comparable credibility on those facets of judgments with or without real-time communication. It is important to note that once the interactivity measures were covaried from the analysis, the synchronicity effects disappeared. This disappearance indicates that synchronicity had little if any direct effect on credibility, instead primarily exerting its inuence indirectly through the degree of interactivity that was generated. By contrast, synchronicity did affect decision-making, above and beyond the effects of interactivity. Those who interacted at different times changed their post-discussion decision for worse quality as compared to synchronous partners, who stayed relatively the same or improved slightly. Thus, synchronicity functioned largely as expected, exerting inuence on outcomes indirectly and directly. Indirect effects occurred via the mediation of interactivity. The implications are clear: As with other aspects of media that enable or inhibit interactivity, ability to interact in real time has direct consequences for how interactions and their participants are perceived and for how work is performed. Asynchronous forms of communication weaken the sense of engagement among participants. They result in users having less trust for one another and viewing one another in a less favorable light. Either due to less favorable social perceptions or in addition to them, different-time communications also retard changes toward best decisions. Use of asynchronous communication, then, bears risks. Feelings of detachment and disinterest may breed distrust, lack of condence in information and people, and poorer task performance. Conversely, same-time communication may engender the sense of presence and connection that is so essential to team cohesion and performance.

4.2 Effects of Interactivity The third hypothesis tested the relationships among qualities of interactivity and credibility. As hypothesized, all relationships were significant. The more involvement, mutuality, and similarity that team members felt with their task partners, the more they perceived them as trustworthy, sociable, composed, expert, dominant, and persuasive. In short, interactivity fostered higher regard on social judgments related to both trust and persuasiveness. Were it the case that only synchronous communication affords interactivity, one might conclude that every effort be directed toward building this affordance into all

123

362

J. K. Burgoon et al.

forms of CMC. But synchronicity is not the only means of fostering interactive communication. As other investigations have shown, geographic proximity and richer media (i.e., having access to full visual, auditory, tactile, proxemic, and environmental information) can also foster involvement, mutuality, and perceived similarity. Inasmuch as the correlational results showed that where there is interactivity, there is also perceived trust, sociability, composure, expertise, persuasiveness, and dominance, the key to getting the best out of communication interfaces that historically generate less interactivity is in nding other means to elevate engagement, connection, and similarity. A variety of techniques are possible to achieve this aim, ranging from engaging in get-acquainted activities when a new team is formulated; to exchanging personal information that heightens awareness among team members of their individuality, strengths, and requirements; to periodically building in time for socializing; to insistence by leaders on frequent and predictable contacts among distributed team members. Responsibilities for such interactivity-promoting activities may fall to team leaders and supervisors or may be aided by technology, such as use of shared calendaring and built-in reminders to ensure that communication remains frequent and team members procedural or task concerns are addressed. Instituting mechanisms to heighten interactivity of course assumes that interactivity is desirable, that team members are interacting in good faith without hidden agendas, ulterior motives, deception, and the like. If these assumptions dont hold, the picture changes. The presence of deception is illustrative.

4.3 Effects of Deception In the current experiment, contrary to the hypothesis, deception did not adversely affect interactivity in this experiment. It thus failed to replicate previous results (Burgoon et al. 2003), showing that deception lowered ratings of deceivers on involvement, felt similarity and felt understanding. There was no interaction between synchronicity and deception to impact interactivity. In other words, deception affected involvement, mutuality, and similarity in a similar pattern under both synchronous and asynchronous communication. Put another way, deceivers were as successful in achieving interactivity as were truthtellers. Nave partners perceived that their partners were more composed, more sociable, and more dominant in the deceptive condition than the truthful condition. Deception also did not interact with synchronicity to affect interactivity. Timeliness of communication neither impaired nor aided deceivers in appearing involved and creating feelings of mutuality. Where deception did have an adverse effect was on team performance, both directly and indirectly through its inuence on interactivity. Deceivers were actually judged as more credible than truthtellers; they were especially successful in portraying themselves as sociable, composed, and dominant. Also as might be expected, teams in which deception was present made poorer decisions than when deception was absent. As for how deception worked vis a vis interactivity, when deception was not present, participants who felt similarity to their partners changed more toward the best decision; when deception was present, greater involvement enabled deceivers to deter partners from changing toward the best decision. This underscores our earlier argument that

123

Deception and its Detection

363

interactivity per se is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. When users come together in a cooperative, good-faith manner, interactivity promotes positive communication and outcomes. When users have ulterior motives, interactivity can instead amplify vulnerabilities to manipulation; it can sabotage rather than facilitate decision-making. It must be noted that these effects are not due strictly to interactivity heightening susceptibility. Deception continued to have a negative impact above and beyond the effects of interactivity. The implication is that motivated deceivers can effectively promote a credible image when interacting via text, and can parlay their credibility into persuading others to make faulty decisions, regardless of whether the communication mode is synchronous or asynchronous. The combination of deception and synchronous communication may, however, be the most dangerous because deceivers can create a pseudo-relationship when interactivity is high and can capitalize on the truth bias that is more pronounced under real-time conditions. This places users in a quandary about whether to choose synchronous or asynchronous modes of communication when motives of others are not known. If the only objective of communication is to maintain social relationships, synchronous communication is a better choice, since it fosters greater interactivity and more favorable social judgments. When task performance is involved, the picture is more complex. On the one hand, real-time communication should enable the kinds of ideal communication that one hopes to achieve in task-related communication, and it confers credibility on its users just by virtue of its use. It also gives those with ulterior motives greater opportunity to gain feedback and allay any suspicions that might arise. On the other hand, it also loses the dispassionate evaluation of information that is indispensable when faulty information might be introduced into deliberations, be it due to deception or mere incompetence. Put differently, asynchronous communication creates a level of detachment that may be the best shield against misinformation, manipulation, and misrepresentation. It enables users to resist bad arguments and to engage in more thoughtful analysis. And yet, that same detachment may also lead users to capitulate to the positions of more forceful participants. Given that deceivers in this investigation were more persuasive and credible than their truth-telling counterparts, this concern is a very real one. Choices therefore should be informed by assessment of the likely motives and expertise of others. One nal conclusion to be drawn from this investigation is that mediated forms of communication cannot all be grouped into a homogeneous class and contrasted to face-to-face communication. Even within a text-based computer-mediated form of communication, there are systematic differences in communication processes and outcomes based solely on whether the communication is synchronous or asynchronous. Equally important to its structural characteristics are the degree to which it promotes or inhibits interactivity. It is hoped that future research will continue to decompose communication modes into their constituent properties and delve into the interrelationships among properties of interfaces, resultant communication processes, and social and task outcomes so as to tease out which factors serve important mediating and moderating roles. The implication for communication technology design is that different conguration of communication interfaces may support different levels of

123

364

J. K. Burgoon et al.

interactivity, and affect perceived social judgments and work performance. The technology should be exible in terms of allowing users to select certain communication features and congure these features in particular ways. For example, the electronic message board could incorporate features of login scheduling and login reminding so that users can set up a log in schedule; if a user does not log in on time, an email reminder will be sent to the user automatically, or if there is new content in the message board, an email can be automatically sent to the user for updating information. This may increase users participation and likely the interactivity, favorable social judgments and work performance.

5 Appendix 5.1 Desert Survival Task Post-Interaction Questionnaire Below are a series of adjective pairs that are often used to evaluate members of groups. Each is on a 17 scale, with 1 representing a high degree of the adjective on the left and 7 representing a high degree of the adjective on the right. For example, 1 = very friendly and 7 = very unfriendly Using the adjective pairs below, please select the number that best reects your general impressions of YOUR PARTNER during the DISCUSSION OF THE TOPICS. You may select 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. If you are neutral or unsure, select a 4. Work quickly, indicating your rst response.

qa1 qa2 qa3 qa4 qa5 qa6 qa7 qa8 qa9 qa10 qa11 qa12 qa13 qa14 qa15 qa16 qa17 qa18 qa19 qa20 qa21 qa22 qa23

Very friendly Very trustworthy Very likable Very deceptive Very credible Very unsociable Very dishonest Very persuasive Very irresponsible Very condent Very calm Lacking inuence Very insightful Very experienced Very sluggish Very quiet Very uncomposed Very nervous Affected my decisions greatly Very inexpert Very incompetent Very active Very dominant

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Very unfriendly Very untrustworthy Not likable at all Very truthful Not at all credible Very sociable Very honest Not at all persuasive Very responsible Very uncondent Very tense Inuenced me a great deal Very lacking in insight Very inexperienced Very energetic Very talkative Very composed Very relaxed Did not affect my decisions at all Very expert Very competent Very passive Very submissive

123

Deception and its Detection

365

qa24 qa25 qa26 qa27 qa28 qa29 qa30 qa31 qa32 qa33 qa34 qa35 qa36 qa37 qa38

Very uncomfortable Not willing to listen to me Very similar to me Highly involved Very distracted Thinks like me a lot Very understanding Very much like me Very detached Very bored Very open to my ideas Very cold Created closeness Not at all accepting Promoted cooperation

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Very comfortable Very willing to listen to me Very different from me Not at all involved Very attentive Doesnt think like me at all Not at all understanding Very much unlike me Very engaged Very interested Very closed off to my ideas Very warm Created a sense of distance Very accepting Did not promote cooperation between us

Mutuality = qa25,qa34,qa37,qa30,qa38 Involvement = qa33,qa32,qa28,qa35,qa36,qa27, qa22 Similarity = qa26,qa31,qa29 Trust =qa2, qa4, qa5, qa7, qa9 Composure = qa11, qa17, qa18, qa24 Sociability = qa1, qa3, qa6 Expert = qa13, qa14, qa20, qa21 Persuasiveness = qa8, qa12, qa19 Dominance = qa10, qa15, qa16, qa23

Deceivers Motivation to Deceive: 1. On a scale of 0 to 10, how important was it for you to give convincing answers to your partner during the discussion about the best items to salvage and the best course of action to survive in the desert? Completely unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 completely important

2. On a scale of 0 to 10, how important was it for you to keep your partner form becoming suspicious during the discussion? Completely unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely important

3. On a scale of 0 to 10, how important was it for you to succeed in making Person B believe you? Completely unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 completely important

4. On a scale of 0 to 10, how truthful were you in representing you true rankings and reasons to your partner? Completely untruthful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 completely truthful

123

366

J. K. Burgoon et al.

References
Buller DB, Burgoon JK, Buslig A, Roiger J (1996) Testing interpersonal deception theory: the language of interpersonal deception. Commun Theory 6:268289. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00129.x Burgoon JK (1976) The ideal source: A reexamination of source credibility measurement. Cent States Speech J 27:200206 Burgoon JK, Bonito JAA, Ramirez J, Dunbar NE, Kam K, Fischer J (2002) Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. J Commun 52:657677. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02567.x Burgoon JK, Johnson ML, Koch PT (1998) The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Commun Monogr 65:309335 Burgoon JK, Bonito JA, Bengtsson B, Ramirez A Jr, Dunbar NE, Miczo N (19992000) Testing the interactivity model: communication processes, partner assessment, and the quality of collaborative work. J Manage Inf Syst 16:3558 Burgoon JK, Bonito JA, Kam K (2002) Communication and trust under face-to-face and mediated conditions: implications for leading from a distance. In: Weisband S, Atwater LLeadership at a distance. Erlbaum, Mahwah Burgoon JK, Burgoon M, Broneck K, Alvaro E, Nunamaker JF Jr (2002) Effects of synchronicity and proximity on group communication. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the national communication association. New Orleans Burgoon JK, Le Poire BA (1999) Nonverbal cues and interpersonal judgments: participant and observer perceptions of intimacy, dominance, composure, and formality. Commun Monogr 66:105124 Burgoon JK, Stoner GM, Bonito JA, Dunbar NE (2003). Trust and deception in mediated communication. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Big Island, HI. Los Alamitas: IEEE Cahn DD, Shulman GM (1984) The perceived understanding instrument. Commun Res Rep 1:122125 Dennis AR, Valacich JS (1999). Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Maui, Hawaii. Los Alamitas: IEEE Ekman P (1996) Why dont we catch liars?. Soc Res (New York) 63:801818 Grice P (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Grifn MA, Patterson MG, West MA (2001) Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor support. J Organ Behav 22:537550. doi:10.1002/job.101 Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1998) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. J Computer-Mediated Commun 3(4). June 1998, at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html Lafferty J, Eady P (1974) The desert survival problem. Experimental Learning Methods, Plymouth Le Poire B, Shepard C, Duggan A, Burgoon J (2003) Relational messages associated with nonverbal involvement, pleasantness, and expressiveness in romantic couples. Communication Research Reports Markova I, Graumann CF, Foppa K (eds) (1995) Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge McCroskey JC, Hamilton PR, Weiner AM (1974) The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Hum Commun Res 1:4252 McCornack SA, Parks MR (1986) Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. In: McLaughlin ML (ed) Communication yearbook 9. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp 377389 McCroskey JC, Young TJ (1981) Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. Cent States Speech J 32:2434 Walther JB, Bunz U, Bazarova NN (2005) The rules of virtual groups. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Big Island, HI. Los Alamitas: IEEE Walther JB, Loh T, Granka L (2009) Let me count the ways: the interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face afnity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology (in press) Watzlawick P, Beavin JH, Jackson DD (1967) Pragmatics of human communication: a study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. W. W. Norton, New York

123

Copyright of Group Decision & Negotiation is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.