Annotated Bibliography

Cahn, D. D. (1985). Telling It Exactly Like It Is: An Experimental Study of Oral Truth Cues.

Communication Research Reports, 2(1), 86–89.

The research in this article serves to provide information on how we visually detect deception.

Except it’s unique in that instead of trying to detect deception from pointing out the lair’s cues

and behavioral giveaways, it’s detecting it through seeing signs of truth or the lack of. The

method was through a social experiment. Having a debate where six students were told to tell the

truth and support what they really agree with and six were told to lie, then the subjects/observers

were supposed to guess who was telling the truth. In the results they took a look at the sex of the

subjects that were able to correctly identify the truth tellers, and they found that females were

better at detecting the truth. This article gives extra insight into the interpersonal deception

theory, taking it and looking at it from a different set of eyes in a way that maybe isn’t done very

often.

Allhoff, F. (2003). Business Bluffing Reconsidered. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 283–289.

https://doi-org.proxy.li.suu.edu:2443/10.1023/A:1024103612716.

The purpose of this article is to present the argument that bluffing in business or negotiation is

acceptable from a moral standpoint and should be endorsed. This argument is presented through

the explanation and comparison of two relative and influential papers. Alloff shares his criticism

and his point of view on the papers and how well they uphold the argument, drawing his final

conclusion. His conclusion being that, while the rules of ethics are for the most part common
knowledge around the world, when looking at the ethics of bluffing in a business sense there's an

exception. There needs to be boundaries set on when bluffing in business is moral and when it’s

not. This article pertains to my theory because this argument is an example of why the

interpersonal deception theory exists and why it is so important and prominent. These boundaries

and rules they are searching for are only justified through the understanding of the interpersonal

deception theory.

Levine, T. R., Shaw, A., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). Increasing Deception Detection Accuracy

with Strategic Questioning. Human Communication Research, 36(2), 216–231.

https://doi-org.proxy.li.suu.edu:2443/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01374.x.

The question brought up in this article; can we increase our ability to detect deception through

strategic questioning? Research was done by letting a group view the interrogations of people

who have cheated and ones who haven’t. The idea was that the more direct and strategic the

questioning, the more transparent those being interrogated would become. The results proved

this to be true. There is about a 20% increase in transparency of those who were strategically

questioned. The interpersonal deception theory is able to help us understand what it means for

this transparency to occur. Why the direct questions lead to leakage and how they help us point

out behavioral cues to tell us when someone is lying.

Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2015). Police Detection of Deception: Beliefs About Behavioral Cues

to Deception Are Strong Even Though Contextual Evidence Is More Useful. Journal of
 Communication, 65(1), 125–145.

https://doi-org.proxy.li.suu.edu:2443/10.1111/jcom.12135

The question brought up in this research is whether behavioral deception cues can actually be

determined as valid. This research was done by questioning community members versus police

officers and comparing their answers when they were asked to explain their personal methods of

detecting a lie. The results were that for the majority, the answers were behavioral cues that had

helped them catch the lie. However, of those who did more often catch a lie through something

they said or a verbal cue, the majority of them were police officers. These cues are a huge part of

the interpersonal deception theory, and what this article also shines light on is that there is a large

problem when it comes to what is actually been caught by a cue and what has just been a lucky

guess through personal belief and bias.

Wise, M., & Rodriguez, D. (2013). Detecting Deceptive Communication Through

Computer-Mediated Technology: Applying Interpersonal Deception Theory to Texting

Behavior. Communication Research Reports, 30(4), 342–346.

https://doi-org.proxy.li.suu.edu:2443/10.1080/08824096.2013.823861

This article takes on the research of looking at what texting does to affect the process of the

interpersonal deception theory. Because non-verbal cues are such an important factor in catching

deception, what happens when they are taken away and you’re only left with few verbal cues

through text? So does texting help deceivers get away with their lies or does it make it easier for

them to be detected? The method used to research was a survey sent out to 160 undergrad

students. In the results, many admitted to having sent a deceptive text. Of those who admitted,
most of them had been more successful than they are in person. This research teaches us that in

the interpersonal deception theory, when we take away certain factors such as non-verbal cues,

our results are going to differ. Other signs and cues become higher but there may be less

transparency.