This weekend, I took a trip to SUNY Albany to visit my best friend from high school. It was quite the eventful trip. When they say that
The second story I told Margaret via instant message was even more outlandish than the first. I made sure to include all of the improbable details in hopes that she would think that it was all too unrealistic to be true. I think in the end that strategy backfired on me because the extra details that were missing from the first story gave the second story more authenticity. I was at least partially successful in my lying because when I told her that one of the stories wasn’t true, she was surprised. However, after minimal deliberation, she guessed correctly that the first story was false. She cited the fact that it wasn’t as well-developed as the second story and the fact that I hadn’t mumbled at all when I was telling the story (which was very unusual for me). My roommate later pointed out that my voice was higher pitched when I was lying to Margaret than it normally was. Higher pitch is an important nonverbal leakage cue that can indicate that a person is being untruthful and on some level, Margaret may have picked up on it.
I think in this case, variables that have been theorized to interact with communication medium in the context of deception detection may have partially to blame. Margaret knows me so well that it wasn’t difficult for her to make a judgment about what sort of debauched behavior I was more likely to engage in. In addition, the motivational impairment effect may have played a role in my detection. I wanted to get away with lying and had spent time considering how best to do so. In the end, my increased behavioral rigidity gave me away. I told my fictional story unnaturally and with none of the usual embellishments that I would have ordinarily included. Perhaps, one day, the lessons about deception that I learn in this class will enable me to lie like a champ. Until then, I remain unsuccessful in my various deceptive adventures.
3 comments:
It seems that you and I had very similar experiences. Funny how we both chose to tell the true story over the lean media and the false story over the rich media. Tone of voice was a common giveaway in choosing the true story. We don’t realize it, but we very often go to a higher pitch tone and speak a little quicker when were trying to make up something. We also don’t seem to want to give a lot of detail so as to not contradict ourselves. My friend saw the lie because I didn’t go into much detail as I normally would. The lean media is designed to ambiguate lies and provide a better chance of deception. We proved the rich media by having the fake story detected over the phone.
The most interesting aspect of your blog was when you mentioned that by not speaking ftf you were able to reallocate your focus and resources towards a more convincing story. Though we tell lies on a daily basis, I would believe we subconsciously make decisions on how, when, and where we tell lies. The other interesting part of your blog which got me thinking was when you mentioned how well Margaret knows you and how that effected the outcome of your experiment. Telling a lie to a friend as opposed telling a lie to a random stranger is completely different. Emotions, such as guilt, definitely effect my delivery of a story. In addition, perhaps the greatest give away is that a friend has certain expectations of behavior and attitudes. If your story doesn’t meet or exceeds these expectations, it could be perceived as false. Your blog really hit on the idea of Media Richness theory. But most interestingly, you examined some of the more external facets of it. For example, ones expectations, reallocation of resources, and the importance of who the lie is told to.
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/dat-youngin-who-i-hadda-dun-known-for.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-believe-me-im-lying.html
Post a Comment