Lecture 2 Flashcards
Lecture goals
Understanding how truth-default theory has provided interesting insights as to how we collaborate in our everyday lives
Exemplify the causes and consequences behind the distrust of another person with the help of a case
Analyse a case of perceived deception through the lens of Truth-Default Theory.
Truth-Default Theory (TDT):
Truth-Default Theory (TDT): This theory, developed by communication scholar Timothy Levine, posits that people generally default to assuming others are telling the truth during communication. This assumption facilitates smooth and efficient social interactions.
Insights into Collaboration: By understanding TDT, we can better appreciate why and how we tend to collaborate with others. The default belief in others’ honesty helps in building trust and maintaining cooperation in social and professional relationships.
WHY DO WE LIE?
Lying is part of a communicational strategy that allows us to reach our goals when the truth does not suffice
More specifically, according to the ADCA theory, we ponder the pros and cons of truth-telling and lie-telling before making a choice
The goal here is to make the best choice possible for us (selfish lies) but also for the other person (altruistic lies) or the relationship (prosocial lies)
If Truth default theory holds then WHEN DO WE BELIEVE SOMEONE IS LYING
We need to be triggered for this.
Truth-default theory specifies two types of triggers:
A first shift towards scepticism and suspicion
A second shift towards deception attribution
WHEN YOU ARE NOT PROMPTED :
When you are not prompted, you tend to be blind to deception
However, when someone tells you to give your opinion regarding the authenticity of someone’s account, then people are much more suspicion- and deception-proned.
Deception
Deception antithetical to trust.
Dishonesty deprives people of two of the most principal instruments for interpersonal action—trust and belief”
Deception is a trust-killer.
What were the findings of the trust game about deception by Schweitzer
- “Promising” facilitates the restoration of trust short-term
-Long-term, little effect - “Apologies” were kind of useless.
- As long as there was no deception, you can recover from trust.
- But as soon as there is deception, it seems to be completely broken and unsalvageable
- Even if you have a trusting behavior afterwards
- People trust others more in the case of an altruistic lie compared to a selfish truth
Benevolence and types of deceptions
- Benevolence affects trust more than actual deception
- But all deception does not affect all trust the same way.
- Prosocial deception increases benevolence-based trust
- Prosocial deception harms integrity-based trust
Preception test:
Test setting :
- What if the person that you are negociating with started showing some nonverbal signs
commonly associated with deception?
⚬ One control condition, one with subtle cues, one with obvious cues - Measures included:
⚬ negotiation outcomes (intended concession, disclose information, satisfaction)
⚬ trust-related measures (ability-based trustworthiness, benevolent-based
trustworthiness, integrity, trust)
⚬ perceived deception
[Au & Wong (2019)]
- Did participants perceive more deception with cues? YES.
- Did perceived deception negatively affect trust measures?
⚬ Ability-based measures: YES
⚬ Benevolence-based measures: YES
⚬ Integrity: YES
⚬ Trust: YES
- Did perceived deception affect the outcome of the negotiation?
YES
More nonverbal cues -> Increased perceived deception -> Decrease trust -> Decrease
negotiation outcome
this is also connected Truth default theory
Key TAKE AWAY
- Deception have a love hate relationship: sometimes they foster each other, sometimes
they hate each other. - One important point: benevolence always wins, even when it involves deception
- Perceived deception can have a solid influence on the trust level one has. Impression
management matters
Benevolence defintion
desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitablenes
