Running Head: INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

Interpersonal Deception Theory

Interpersonal Communication 102
Bryan Zaharko
College of Western Idaho

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

Introduction
Since Moses descended from Mount Sinai and delivered unto his
followers the Eighth Commandment, which besought them not to bear false
witness, there has been a stigmatic sense of intercultural confusion about
deception. Rules determining whether or not it is culturally or personally
acceptable to deceive, mislead, lie, cheat, or betray often times rests on very
blurred lines which may or may not be viewed equally by those around us.
Different levels of acceptance and habitual practice of relational or social
deception can lead to major complications and difficulties that have, can,
and well destroy any level of interpersonal relationship.
Deception can divide countries, separate families, and ultimately ruin
lives. However, the ability to deceive may also be positively used to promote
cooperation through hiding harsh truths, and usher in peace by disguising
negative personal or professional feelings towards others whom we may
coexist. One can use a more acceptable form of deception to inspire wonder
and awe in their childs life by guaranteeing them of the reality of Santa
Clause one day, and hide an extramarital affair from his wife with cultural
shunned forms of lies and deceit the next. Whether or not you may despise
the theory of deception for its insidiousness treachery, hold it in esteem for
its practicality and convenience, or anything in between, each and every one
of us must accept that deception is ubiquitous in our everyday lives; and it is
up to us to decide how we will use it and whether or not we will embrace it.

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

During this literary review of interpersonal deception you will be

introduced to the theory of interpersonal deception. Citations and quotations
from leaders in the field of psychological investigation will be used to
reinforce facts and eliminate opinions. You will examine the different stages,
layers and forms of deception. The long term effects of deception on those
who habitually deceive will be presented as well.
Finally, a thorough investigation on the effects of interpersonal
deception will be presented through personal self-examination by means of
consciously purging lies and dishonesty from my life, and forcing me to be
honest with myself and others around me. This study will include notes on
the cognitive and emotional effects of deception and honesty.
Interpersonal Literature
Dariusz Galasinski, professor of discourse and cultural studies at the
University of Wolverhampton articulately defined deception as any type of
manipulation (Galasinski, 2000, p. 1). Meaning that regardless of the ones
intentions, when they innocently mislead, harmlessly misinform, or mildly
delude truths they are guilty of deception. He proceeds to state that issuing
a false statement with the intention to mislead the target, the deceiver has
to have at least two goals: First, the speaker's primary goal is to influence
the recipient by establishing a foundation of trust. Second, the liar wants the
target to actually believe that the falseness of what they are saying is the
truth. The success of the lie is dependent on the fulfilment of these two goals
(Galasinski, 2000, p. 113). Galasinski shows that deceptions need not be

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

complicated, or twisted constructions of partial truths, to lie is as simple as

establishing trust and secretly breaking the through the fabrication of false
truths. He sums up his clarification of deception by simply saying that
deception, it seems, is at the core of all noncooperation (Galasinski, 2000,
p. 2).
Now that the theory and definition of interpersonal deception is
understood, the subsequent sections of the literary review will focus the
different forms that interior and exterior deception can take. The following
will also focus on examples of how deception is ever-present in our lives.
Conceptions of Deception
Dr. Luigi Anolli, professor of science education at Anolli Universit di
Milano-Bicocca in Italy, shows ways that deception can manifest itself in
different circumstances by distinguishing prepared and unprepared
deception. Prepared deception, according to Dr. Anolli, is almost always
planned in advance, and the main aspects of the lie or manipulation is
thoughtfully examined by the deceiver before the any words are spoken
(Anolli et al., 2002, p. 73). This level of deception could be represented by
an employee rehearsing a fabricated excuse to his boss about why he missed
the previous day of work. Contrary to prepared deception, unprepared
deception is spontaneously or instinctually said (p. 73). An example of the
unprepared level of deception can be observed when a child knocks over a
lamp and as it shatters on the floor the child tells her startled mother that it
was her baby sisters fault. In both situations, and the vast majority of

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

circumstances culminating in the presumed necessity to lie, deception is

used in place of the truth for protection from confrontation or disciplinary
action.
Levels of Deception
Different circumstances will ultimately lead to us using different levels
of deception. Dr. Anolli defines the differentiation of importance of a
situation in which deception is presented as high and low-content deception.
He says that high-content deception concerns a serious topic, is said in
vitally important contexts, and that high-content deception is categorized by
the possibilities of severe consequences. Deception is integrated into these
serious situations to protect the deceiver, addressees, or other people from
possible negative effects (Anolli et al., 2002, p. 73). A case of high-content
deception can be a defendant lying under oath in a courtroom to protect
himself from prosecution. The contrary to high-content deception is lowcontent deception which, as Anolli describes as lies in regard to minor topics.
There is usually little or nothing at stake, both in the long and short term, in
low-content deception, and the lie is spoken involuntarily (p. 73). An
example of low-content deception would be someone that tells their fiend
that they have seen a movie when they really havent, or like a popular band
when they really dont. In high-context lying, deception can be a vital
mechanism for self-preservation; whereas, low-context lying are
distinguished for their unimportance by being referred to as little white
lies.

High-context deception cannot be immediately forgotten, and must

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

be constantly continued and perfected. While a low-context lie can be

forgotten moments after it said with little or no negative consequences.
Self-Deception
Professor of philosophy at Florida State University, Alfred Mele,
introduces the theory of self-deception, or the prospect of lying to ones self,
by placing them into two groups: the first of these groups is known as
"straight" self-deception. In straight self-deception people trick themselves
in believing in something that they want to be true (Mele, 2000, p. 90).
Someone experiencing strait self-deception may blind themselves to a harsh
truth by forcing upon themselves a false realization of a positive perspective
- they see the world sunny-side up. According to Mele, the second type of
self-deception, twisted self-deception, is much less common, and in reality
more perplexing then the strait verity. Twisted self-deception could be
represented by an insecure, jealous husband who suspects that his wife is
having an affair; and despite only possessing relatively insubstantial
evidence, and this mans desperate desire for the possible affair to be false
is overshadowed by the thought that it must be factual (p. 90). The
oversimplification of the difference between strait and twisted self-deception
can be given by presenting strait-ists as people who see the world for the
better, even if there is evidence that points to the contrary; and those
suffering from twisted self-deception are pessimistic about their personal
situations in life, even though there is little reason to be negative or cynical.

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

In both circumstances the perception of personal reality can be permanently

damaged, placing interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships in jeopardy.
Consequences of Deceit
Ivan Nyklcek, professor of psychiatry & psychology at the University of
Tilburg in the Netherlands, states that people tend to believe that different
forms and variations of deception are actually adaptive and a requirement
for successful living, maintaining social relationships, ones own
psychological health (Nyklcek et al., 2004, pp. 2-3). However, based on his
research Nyklcek found that forsaking deception and accepting truthfulness
actually helps to regulate ones negative emotions by allowing us to become
emotional acclimatized to the reality around us, experiencing cognitive
evaluation, and receiving a personal validation of emotions (pp. 2,3).
Dr. Luigi Anolli, professor of science education at Anolli Universit di
Milano-Bicocca in Itay, strengthens Nyklcek theory about the personal
psychological dangers of deception by writing that when one lies, the
speaker has to face up to high cognitive demands (Anolli et al., 2002, p. 73).
He continues by stating that telling a lie requires the deceiver to create an
alternate reality that must be maintained. The deceiver has to manufacture
a message that can be easily remembered, believed, and has a low risk of
penalty. For this basic reason, when lying people often resort to an "inbetween" message, which involves understated and complicated packaging
of both false and truthful foundations. Truth and fiction are then meshed

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

together, and eventually, through habitual deception it becomes impossible

for the deceiver to accurately judge reality (p. 73).
Method Used
Since this portion of the research relays on thorough self-analysis,
while discussing the methodology of my investigation I will be referring to
myself in the first-person; this will allow me to properly express complicated
cognitive functions that would otherwise be impossible to accurately explain
and properly understand if written in the third person.
In a society as competitive as ours, it can sometimes be a very difficult
proposition to be yourself. From constant exposure to the barrages of
outside influence, it is understandable how one can lose their proper frame
of self-actualization. The need to for public acceptance can compromise who
we really are. We oftentimes lie to ourselves and to others to publicly fit in
this results in an altered self-image which is reinforced by layer after layer of
subtle low and high-content lies.
For my study I went one month without telling a lie to myself or to
those around me, and attempted to properly document different sensations
and emotions that were felt during this cerebral conversion.
This examination, although intimidating at first, soon turned into a
source of great pride in the early stages of my study. I found myself telling
friends, co-workers, and family members that I had indefinitely sworn off
lying soon after the analysis began. My initial reasoning of my eagerness to
tell others about my plan was to garner admiration from them, but soon I

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

found that it really didnt matter to me what they thought of me or my

endeavor into uncompromised honesty, I was simply happy to be able (for
the first time in my life) to be completely true to myself; I realized that I was
actually sharing this experience with others in hope of their possible
emulation, not ovation. This proved that whatever level of dishonesty or
deception that was in my life had, in fact, had a negative effect on me
because I felt to good once it was gone that I wanted to share this feeling
with others. Once I had rid my conscious and sub-conscious of any excuse to
outwardly, or inwardly, deceive I felt free.
Over the subsequent weeks I realized that I was prone to greater
senses of happiness without the constant threat of deception looming behind
every one of my social and private engagements. I found a greater sense of
personal accountability for my actions because I no longer had the option to
mask a bad decision with a convenient lie. This, in turn, gave me an
absolute feeling of self-actualization by freeing me from the thought that I
needed to try hard to be accepted by others. I no longer could say that I liked
the movies that my friends liked but I hated, or falsify personal preferences
to assimilate with others around me. I even told my boss that I needed to go
home early because I didnt want to be at work anymore that day; and as I
walked out the door I laughed because I knew that I had been truthful, and I
didnt have to hide behind a lie of being sick when I came to work the next
day.

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

10
On the final day of my study on personal honesty I decided to attempt
one day of pure deception. For that day everything that I said was forced
into a lie. When I was happy I was reluctantly forces to tell others that I was
sad as the day drudged on, and I became increasingly sad, I had to tell
those around me that I was happy. I felt true shame in every sense of the
word, and eventually, in fear of saying something that I would regret to
someone I love, I hid myself away from my family and made the decision to
end this day by going to bed early and alone. While lying in bed I realized
that every lie that I had told throughout the day was excruciatingly difficult.
I then realized that I was used to telling the truth. Honesty and deception
are actually traits that could be learned and one can grow accustom to.
Conclusion
This study illustrates the different forms that interpersonal deception
can take, and the dangers that result from our reliance on our ability to
deceive others. The overriding message about deception that countless
hours of research has uncovered is that although no one wants to be taken
advantage, deceived, or lied to - we all selfishly tend to use deception as a
crutch-shaped tool to take advantage of others. Deception has divided
countries, separated families, and ruined lives. Nearly any form of
interpersonal deception comes at a great long and short term prices to both
the deceiver and those being deceived. It is my hope through reading this
essay we can realize that deception is not the only way to get what we need

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

11
from others or ourselves; honesty and integrity require less cognitive effort
and provide deeper, more genuine sense of sustainable reality.

Work Cited
Anolli, L., Ciceri, R., Riva, G. (2002). Say not to say: New perspectives on
miscommunication (p. 73). Amsterdam. IOS Press.
Ceci, S.J., Leichtman, M.D., Putnick, M.E. (2013). Cognitive and social factors
in early deception (p. 70). Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Galasinski, D. (2000). The language of deception: A discourse analytical
study (pp.1, 2, 113). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.
Mele, A.R. (2000). Self-deception unmasked (p. 90). Princeton, NJ. Princeton
University Press.

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY

12
Nyklcek, I., Temoshok, L., Vingerhoets, A. (2004). Emotional expression and
health: advances in theory, assessment and clinical applications (pp. 2,
3). New York, NY. Brunner-Routledge.