Deception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Short description Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Hatnote list' not found. Template:DMCA

Deception is the act of convincing one or many recipients of untrue information. The person creating the deception knows it to be false while the receiver of the information does not.[1] It is often done for personal gain or advantage.[2][3]

Deceit and dishonesty can also form grounds for civil litigation in tort, or contract law (where it is known as misrepresentation or fraudulent misrepresentation if deliberate), or give rise to criminal prosecution for fraud.[4]

Types

Communication

Deception of woman, with self-portrait by Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz, 1927 (National Museum, Warsaw)

The Interpersonal Deception Theory explores the interrelation between communicative context and sender and receiver cognitions and behaviors in deceptive exchanges.

Some forms of deception include:

  • Lies: making up information or giving information that is the opposite or very different from the truth.[5]
  • Equivocations: making an indirect, ambiguous, or contradictory statement.
  • Concealments: omitting information that is important or relevant to the given context, or engaging in behavior that helps hide relevant information.
  • Exaggerations: overstatement or stretching the truth to a degree.
  • Understatements: minimization or downplaying aspects of the truth.[6]
  • Untruths: misinterpreting the truth.

Buller and Burgoon (1996) have proposed three taxonomies to distinguish motivations for deception based on their Interpersonal Deception Theory:

  • Instrumental: to avoid punishment or to protect resources
  • Relational: to maintain relationships or bonds
  • Identity: to preserve "face" or the self-image[7]

Appearance

Mimicry

In the biological world, mimicry involves deception by similarity to another organism, or to a natural object. Animals for example may deceive predators or prey by visual, auditory or other means.[8]

Camouflage

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

This wallaby has adaptive colouration which allows it to blend with its environment.

The camouflage of a physical object often works by breaking up the visual boundary of that object. This usually involves colouring the camouflaged object with the same colours as the background against which the object will be hidden.[9]

Military camouflage as a form of visual deception is a part of many campaigns.

Disguise

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Disguises are used to create the impression of a false appearance.[10] A seventeenth-century story collection, Zhang Yingyu's The Book of Swindles (ca. 1617), offers multiple examples of the bait-and-switch and fraud techniques involving the stimulation of greed in Ming-dynasty China.[11]

In romantic relationships

The Beguiling of Merlin, by Edward Burne-Jones, 1874

Deception has also been observed and studied in romantic relationships.[6][12]

There are three primary motivations for deception in relationships.

Reasons for deceiving Description
Partner-focused motives Using deception to avoid hurting the partner, to help the partner to enhance or maintain their self-esteem, to avoid worrying the partner, and to protect the partner's relationship with a third party.[13][14][15] Partner-focused motivated deception can sometimes be viewed as socially polite and relationally beneficial, such as telling white lies to avoid hurting your partner. Although other, less common, partner-focused motives such as using deception to evoke jealous reactions from their partner may have damaging effects on a relationship.[13][16]
Self-focused motives Using deception to enhance or protect one's own self-image, maintain or establish their autonomy, avoid constrictions, unwanted activities, or impositions, shield themselves from anger, embarrassment, or criticism, or resolve an argument.[12][13][14] Another common self-focused motive for deception, is a continuation of deception to avoid being caught in a previous deception.[13] Self-focused deception is generally perceived as a more serious transgression than partner-focused deception, because the deceiver is acting for selfish reasons rather than for the good of the partner or relationship.
Relationship-focused motives Using deception to limit relationship harm by avoiding conflict or relational trauma.[13] Relationally motivated deception can be beneficial to a relationship, and other times it can be harmful by further complicating matters. Deception may also be used to facilitate the dissolution of an unwanted relationship.[12]

Deception impacts the perception of a relationship in a variety of ways, for both the deceiver and the deceived. The deceiver typically perceives less understanding and intimacy from the relationship, in that they see their partner as less empathetic and more distant.[17] The act of deception can also result in feelings of distress for the deceiver, which become worse the longer the deceiver has known the deceived, as well as in longer-term relationships. Once discovered, deception creates feelings of detachment and uneasiness surrounding the relationship for both partners; this can eventually lead to both partners becoming more removed from the relationship or deterioration of the relationship.[12] In general, discovery of deception can result in a decrease in relationship satisfaction and commitment level, however, in instances where a person is successfully deceived, relationship satisfaction can actually be positively impacted for the person deceived, since lies are typically used to make the other partner feel more positive about the relationship.

In general, deception tends to occur less often in relationships with higher satisfaction and commitment levels and in relationships where partners have known each other longer, such as long-term relationships and marriage.[12] In comparison, deception is more likely to occur in casual relationships and in dating where commitment level and length of acquaintanceship is often much lower.[17][18]

Deception and infidelity

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Unique to exclusive romantic relationships is the use of deception in the form of infidelity. When it comes to the occurrence of infidelity, many individual difference factors can impact this behavior. Infidelity is impacted by attachment style, relationship satisfaction, executive function, sociosexual orientation, personality traits, and gender. Attachment style impacts the probability of infidelity and research indicates that people with an insecure attachment style (anxious or avoidant) are more likely to cheat compared to individuals with a secure attachment style,[19] especially for avoidant men and anxious women.[20] Insecure attachment styles are characterized by a lack of comfort within a romantic relationship resulting in a desire to be overly independent (avoidant attachment style) or a desire to be overly dependent on their partner in an unhealthy way (anxious attachment style). Those with an insecure attachment style are characterized by not believing that their romantic partner can/will support and comfort them in an effective way, either stemming from a negative belief regarding themselves (anxious attachment style) or a negative belief regarding romantic others (avoidant attachment style). Women are more likely to commit infidelity when they are emotionally unsatisfied with their relationship whereas men are more likely to commit infidelity if they are sexually unsatisfied with their current relationship.[21] Women are more likely to commit emotional infidelity than men while men are more likely to commit sexual infidelity than women; however, these are not mutually exclusive categories as both men and women can and do engage in emotional or sexual infidelity.[21]

Executive control is a part of executive functions that allows individuals to monitor and control their behavior through thinking about and managing their actions. The level of executive control that an individual possesses is impacted by development and experience and can be improved through training and practice.[22][23] Those individuals who show a higher level of executive control can more easily influence/control their thoughts and behaviors in relation to potential threats to an ongoing relationship which can result in paying less attention to threats to the current relationship (other potential romantic mates).[24] Sociosexual orientation is concerned with how freely individuals partake in casual sex outside of a committed relationship and their beliefs regarding how necessary it is to be in love to engage in sex with someone.[25] Individuals with a less restrictive sociosexual orientation (more likely to partake in casual sex) are more likely to engage in infidelity.[21][25] Individuals who have personality traits including (high) neuroticism, (low) agreeableness, and (low) conscientiousness are more likely to commit infidelity.[21] Men are generally speculated to cheat more than women, but it is unclear if this is a result of socialization processes where it is more acceptable for men to cheat compared to women or due to an actual increase in this behavior for men.[26] Research conducted by Conley and colleagues (2011) suggests that the reasoning behind these gender differences stems from the negative stigma associated with women who engage in casual sex and inferences about the sexual capability of the potential sexual partner. In their study, men and women were equally likely to accept a sexual proposal from an individual who was speculated to have a high level of sexual prowess. Additionally, women were just as likely as men to accept a casual sexual proposal when they did not anticipate being subjected to the negative stigma of sexually permissible women as slutty.[26]

Online dating deceptions

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Research on the use of deception in online dating has shown that people are generally truthful about themselves with the exception of physical attributes to appear more attractive.[27][28][29] According to the Scientific American, "nine out of ten online daters will fib about their height, weight, or age" such that men were more likely to lie about height while women were more likely to lie about weight.[30] In a study conducted by Toma and Hancock, "less attractive people were found to be more likely to have chosen a profile picture in which they were significantly more attractive than they were in everyday life".[31] Both genders used this strategy in online dating profiles, but women more so than men.[31] Additionally, less attractive people were more likely to have "lied about objective measures of physical attractiveness such as height and weight".[31] In general, men are more likely to lie on dating profiles the one exception being that women are more likely to lie about weight.[27]

In business

People who negotiate feel more tempted to use deceit. In negotiation, it includes both parties trusting and respecting one another. In negotiations, one party is unaware of what is going on in the other side of the thing that needs to be negotiated. Deception in negotiation comes in many forms, and each has its reaction (Gaspar et al.,2019).[32]

  • Price reservation: Not stating the real budget or price that one has in mind.
  • Misrepresentation of interests: Getting interests if the buyer seems desperate.
  • Fabrication of facts: This is the most immoral part, where the person lies about materials and misleading information to get a sale.
  • Omitting relevance: Not stating something helpful to know: for example, a car can be like new but it does not help if the seller omits the fact that there is a problem with the transmission.[32]

In journalism

Journalistic deception ranges from passive activities (i.e. blending into a civil rights march) to active deception (i.e. falsely identifying oneself over the telephone, getting hired as a worker at a mental hospital).[33] Paul Braun says that the journalist does not stand apart from the rest of the populace in the use of deception.[33]

In interrogations

Template:Excerpt

In law

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". For legal purposes, deceit is a tort that occurs when a person makes a factual misrepresentation, knowing that it is false (or having no belief in its truth and being reckless as to whether it is true) and intending it to be relied on by the recipient, and the recipient acts to his or her detriment in reliance on it. Deceit may also be grounds for legal action in contract law (known as misrepresentation, or if deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation), or a criminal prosecution, on the basis of fraud.[34][35]

In war

Template:Excerpt

In religion

Deception is a common topic in religious discussions. Some sources focus on how religious texts deal with deception. But other sources focus on the deceptions created by the religions themselves. For example, Ryan McKnight is the founder of an organization called FaithLeaks. He stated that the organization's "goal is to reduce the amount of deception and untruths and unethical behaviors that exist in some facets of religion".[36]

Christianity

Script error: No such module "labelled list hatnote".

Islam

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In general, Islam never allows deception and lies. Prophet Muhammad said, "He who deceives is not of me (is not my follower)".[37] However, there are some exceptions, especially in case of war or peace making or in case of safeguarding one's faith.[citation needed] For an example, Taqiya is an Islamic juridical term for the cases in which a Muslim is allowed to lie under the circumstances when needed to deny their faith due to force or when faced with persecution.[38] The concept mainly followed by Shi'ite sect, but it varies "significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes", and has been evoked by critics of Islam to portray the faith allowing dishonesty.[39]

In psychological research

Though commonly used and allowed by the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association, there has been debate about whether or not the use of deception should be permitted in psychological research experiments. Those against deception object to the ethical and methodological issues involved in its use. Rebecca Dresser noted that, ethically, researchers are only to use subjects in an experiment after the subject has given informed consent. However, because of its very nature, a researcher conducting a deception experiment cannot reveal its true purpose to the subject, thereby making any consent given by a subject misinformed.[40] Diana Baumrind, criticizing the use of deception in the 1963 Milgram obedience experiment, argued that deception experiments inappropriately take advantage of the implicit trust and obedience given by the subject when the subject volunteers to participate.[41]

From a practical perspective, there are also methodological objections to deception. Andreas Ortmann and Ralph Hertwig noted that "deception can strongly affect the reputation of individual labs and the profession, thus contaminating the participant pool". If the subjects in the experiment are suspicious of the researcher, they are unlikely to behave as they normally would, and the researcher's control of the experiment is then compromised.[42] Those who do not object to the use of deception note that there is always a constant struggle in balancing "the need for conducting research that may solve social problems and the necessity for preserving the dignity and rights of the research participant".[43] They also note that, in some cases, using deception is the only way to obtain certain kinds of information, and that prohibiting all deception in research would "have the egregious consequence of preventing researchers from carrying out a wide range of important studies".[44]

Some findings suggest that deception is not harmful to subjects. Larry Christensen's review of the literature found "that research participants do not perceive that they are harmed and do not seem to mind being misled". Furthermore, those participating in experiments involving deception "reported having enjoyed the experience more and perceived more educational benefit" than those who participated in non-deceptive experiments.[45] Lastly, it has also been suggested that an unpleasant treatment used in a deception study or the unpleasant implications of the outcome of a deception study may be the underlying reason that a study using deception is perceived as unethical in nature, rather than the actual deception itself.[46][47]

In social research

Some methodologies in social research, especially in psychology, involve deception. The researchers purposely mislead or misinform the participants about the true nature of the experiment. In an experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1963 the researchers told participants that they would be participating in a scientific study of memory and learning. In reality the study looked at the participants' willingness to obey commands, even when that involved inflicting pain upon another person. After the study, the subjects were informed of the true nature of the study, and steps were taken in order to ensure that the subjects left in a state of well-being.[48]

Online disinhibition

Through the internet, individuals can portray themselves however they please because of the lack of face-to-face communication.[7] Digital deception is widely used within different forms of technology to misrepresent someone or something.[18] Through digital deception, people are easily capable of deceiving others whether it be for their own benefit or to ensure their safety. One form of digital deception is catfishing. By creating a false identity catfishers deceive those online to build relationships, friendships, or connections without revealing who they truly are as a person. They do so by creating an entirely new account that has made-up information allowing them to  portray themselves as a different person. Most lies and misinformation are spread commonly through emails and instant messaging since these messages are erased faster.[19] Without face-to-face communication, it could be easier to deceive others, making it difficult to detect the truth from a lie.  These unreliable cues allow digital deception to easily influence and mislead others.[20]

"Dark patterns"

Template:Excerpt

Double bluff

Double bluffing is a deceptive scenario, in which the deceiver tells truth to a person about some subject, but makes the person think that the deceiver is lying.[49][50][51][52] In poker, the term double bluff refers to a situation in which the deceiving player is trying to bluff with bad cards, then gets re-raised by the opponent, and then re-raises again in the hopes that the enemy player folds.[53] This strategy works best on opponents who easily fold under pressure.[54]

Deception detection

Deception detection is extremely difficult unless it is a blatant or obvious lie or contradicts something the other knows to be true. While it is difficult to deceive a person over a long period of time, deception often occurs in day-to-day conversations between relational partners.[6] Detecting deception is difficult because there are no known completely reliable indicators of deception and because people often rely on a truth-default state. Deception, however, places a significant cognitive load on the deceiver. He or she must recall previous statements so that his or her story remains consistent and believable. As a result, deceivers often leak important information both verbally and nonverbally.

Deception and its detection are complex, fluid, and cognitive processes that are based on the context of the message exchange. The interpersonal deception theory posits that interpersonal deception is a dynamic, iterative process of mutual influence between a sender, who manipulates information to depart from the truth, and a receiver, who attempts to establish the validity of the message.[55] A deceiver's actions are interrelated to the message receiver's actions. It is during this exchange that the deceiver will reveal verbal and nonverbal information about deceit.[56] Some research has found that there are some cues that may be correlated with deceptive communication, but scholars frequently disagree about the effectiveness of many of these cues to serve as reliable indicators.[57] A cross-cultural study conducted to analyze human behavior and deception concluded that detecting deception often has to do with the judgements of a person and how they interpret non-verbal cues. One's personality can influence these judgements also as some people are more confident in deceiving compared to others.[58] Noted deception scholar Aldert Vrij even states that there is no nonverbal behavior that is uniquely associated with deception.[59] As previously stated, a specific behavioral indicator of deception does not exist. There are, however, some nonverbal behaviors that have been found to be correlated with deception. Vrij found that examining a "cluster" of these cues was a significantly more reliable indicator of deception than examining a single cue.[59]

Many people believe that they are good at deception, though this confidence is often misplaced.[60] Deception detection can decrease with increased empathy.[61] Emotion recognition training does not affect the ability to detect deception.[61]

Mark Frank proposes that deception is detected at the cognitive level.[62] Lying requires deliberate conscious behavior, so listening to speech and watching body language are important factors in detecting lies. If a response to a question has a lot of disturbances, less talking time, repeated words, and poor logical structure, then the person may be lying. Vocal cues such as frequency height and variation may also provide meaningful clues to deceit.[63]

Fear specifically causes heightened arousal in liars, which manifests in more frequent blinking, pupil dilation, speech disturbances, and a higher-pitched voice. The liars who experience guilt have been shown to make attempts at putting distance between themselves and the deceptive communication, producing "nonimmediacy cues". These can be verbal or physical, including speaking in more indirect ways and showing an inability to maintain eye contact with their conversation partners.[64] Another cue for detecting deceptive speech is the tone of the speech itself. Streeter, Krauss, Geller, Olson, and Apple (1977) have assessed that fear and anger, two emotions widely associated with deception, cause greater arousal than grief or indifference, and note that the amount of stress one feels is directly related to the frequency of the voice.[65]

See also

References

Citations

Page Template:Reflist/styles.css has no content.

  1. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Daly, John A.; Wiemann, John M. (January 11, 2013). Strategic Interpersonal Communication. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-56375-1.
  2. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Definition of 'deception' – English Dictionary". Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on September 5, 2019. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
  3. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Definition of 'deceive'". Collins English Dictionary. HarperCollins. Archived from the original on April 21, 2019. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
  4. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Deception".
  5. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Griffith, Jeremy (2011). The Book of Real Answers to Everything! – Why do people lie?. ISBN 978-1-74129-007-3. Archived from the original on January 3, 2016. Retrieved December 2, 2012.
  6. ^ a b c Guerrero, L., Anderson, P., Afifi, W. (2007). Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  7. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Buller, D. B.; Burgoon, J. K. (1996). "Interpersonal Deception Theory". Communication Theory. 6 (3): 203–242. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x. S2CID 146464264.
  8. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Mimicry | Definition & Examples | Britannica". Archived from the original on March 17, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
  9. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Definition of CAMOUFLAGE". Archived from the original on April 15, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
  10. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Definition of DISGUISE". Archived from the original on February 21, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
  11. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Zhang, Yingyu (September 2017). Book of Swindles. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-54564-8. Archived from the original on January 4, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2022.
  12. ^ a b c d e Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Cole, T. (2001). "Lying to the one you love: The use of deceptions in romantic relationships". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 18 (1): 107–129. doi:10.1177/0265407501181005. S2CID 44014065.
  13. ^ a b c d e Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Guthrie, J.; Kunkel, A. (2013). "Tell me sweet (and not-so-sweet) little lies: Deception in romantic relationships". Communication Studies. 64 (2): 141–157. doi:10.1080/10510974.2012.755637. S2CID 53677161.
  14. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Boon, S. D.; McLeod, B. A. (2001). "Deception in Romantic Relationships: Subjective Estimates of Success at Deceiving and Attitudes toward Deception". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 18 (4): 463–476. doi:10.1177/0265407501184002. S2CID 144821127.
  15. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Lemay, E. P.; Bechis, M. A.; Martin, J.; Neal, A. M.; Coyne, C. (2013). "Concealing negative evaluations of a romantic partner's physical attractiveness". Personal Relationships. 20 (4): 669–689. doi:10.1111/pere.12007.
  16. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Sheets, V. L.; Fredendall, L. L.; Claypool, H. M. (1997). "Jealousy evocation, partner reassurance, and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits of jealousy". Evolution and Human Behavior. 18 (6): 387–402. Bibcode:1997EHumB..18..387S. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00088-3.
  17. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.DePaulo, B. M.; Kashy, D. A. (1998). "Everyday lies in close and casual relationships". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74 (1): 63–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63. PMID 9457776. S2CID 20626244.
  18. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Rowatt, W. C.; Cunninghan, M. R.; Druen, P. B. (1998). "Deception to get a date". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 24 (11): 1228–1242. doi:10.1177/01461672982411009. S2CID 144546956.
  19. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.DeWall, C. N.; Lambert, N. M.; Slotter, E. B.; Pond, R. S. Jr.; Deckman, T.; Finkel, E. J.; Luchies, L. B.; Fincham, F. D. (2011). "So Far Away From One's Partner, Yet So Close to Romantic Alternatives: Avoidant Attachment, Interest in Alternatives, and Infidelity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (6): 1302–1316. doi:10.1037/a0025497. PMID 21967006. S2CID 16982198.
  20. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Allen, E. S.; Baucom, D. H. (2004). "Adult Attachment and Patterns of Extradyadic Involvement". Family Process. 43 (4): 467–488. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00035.x. PMID 15605979.
  21. ^ a b c d Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Barta, W. D.; Kiene, S. M. (2005). "Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 22 (3): 339–360. doi:10.1177/0265407505052440. S2CID 145727447.
  22. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Diamond, A.; Lee, K. (2011). "Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old". Science. 333 (6045): 959–964. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..959D. doi:10.1126/science.1204529. PMC 3159917. PMID 21852486.
  23. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Klingberg, T. (2010). "Training and plasticity of working memory". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 14 (7): 317–324. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.002. PMID 20630350. S2CID 17438995.
  24. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Pronk, T. M.; Karremans, J. C.; Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2011). "How can you resist? Executive control helps romantically involved individuals to stay faithful". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100 (5): 827–837. doi:10.1037/a0021993. hdl:2066/99390. PMID 21244181.
  25. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Simpson, J. A.; Gangestad, S. W. (1991). "Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (6): 870–883. Bibcode:1991JPSP...60..870S. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870. PMID 1865325.
  26. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Conley, T. D.; Moors, A. C.; Matsick, J. L.; Ziegler, A.; Valentine, B. A. (2011). "Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20 (5): 296–300. doi:10.1177/0963721411418467. S2CID 109937245.
  27. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Can You Really Trust the People You Meet Online? | Psychology Today". www.psychologytoday.com.
  28. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Myth-busting online dating". May 14, 2015. Archived from the original on October 18, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2016.
  29. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Detecting Deception in Online Profiles | Psychology Today". www.psychologytoday.com.
  30. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.d'Costa, Krystal. "Catfishing: The truth about deception online". Scientific American Blog Network. Archived from the original on October 26, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2016.
  31. ^ a b c Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Big fat liars: Less attractive people have more deceptive online dating profiles". December 9, 2011.
  32. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Gaspar, Joseph P.; Methasani, Redona; Schweitzer, Maurice (February 2019). "Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations". Academy of Management Perspectives. 33 (1): 62–81. doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0047. ISSN 1558-9080. S2CID 149085360.
  33. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Braun, Paul (January 1988). "Deception in journalism: 1987 Undergraduate Division Winner of the Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii/AEJMC Student Papers in Journalism Ethics". Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 3 (1): 77–83. doi:10.1080/08900528809358312.
  34. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Misrepresentation". Archived from the original on July 11, 2025. Retrieved July 29, 2025.
  35. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Fraud".
  36. ^ Ruth Graham, "A New "Wikileaks for Religion" Publishes Its First Trove of Documents", Slate, January 12, 2018
  37. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Sahih Muslim 102 – The Book of Faith - كتاب الإيمان - Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)". sunnah.com. Archived from the original on April 7, 2023. Retrieved March 25, 2023.
  38. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Paul E. Walker (2009). "Taqīyah". The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-530513-5. Archived from the original on April 5, 2022. Retrieved October 14, 2020. Taqīyah is the precautionary dissimulation of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.
  39. ^ Mariuma, Yarden. "Taqiyya as Polemic, Law and Knowledge: Following an Islamic Legal Term through the Worlds of Islamic Scholars, Ethnographers, Polemicists and Military Men." The Muslim World 104.1–2 (2014): 89–108.
  40. ^ Dresser, Rebecca S. "Deception research and the HHS final regulations." (1981). p. 3
  41. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Baumrind, Diana (1964). "Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience."". American Psychologist. 19 (6): 421–423. doi:10.1037/h0040128. Archived from the original on May 31, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
  42. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Ortmann, Andreas; Hertwig, Ralph (1998). "The question remains: Is deception acceptable?". American Psychologist. 53 (7): 806–807. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.7.806. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-0025-A17F-8. Archived from the original on August 13, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
  43. ^ Christensen, L (1988). "Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 14 (4): 664–675. doi:10.1177/0146167288144002. S2CID 145114044.
  44. ^ Kimmel, A. J. (1998). "In defense of deception". American Psychologist, 53(7), 803–805. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from the PsycINFO database.
  45. ^ Christensen, L (1988). "Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 14 (4): 664–675. doi:10.1177/0146167288144002. S2CID 145114044.
  46. ^ Bröder, A. (1998). Deception can be acceptable. American Psychologist, 53(7), 805–806. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from the PsycINFO database.
  47. ^ Christensen, L (1988). "Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 14 (4): 664–675. doi:10.1177/0146167288144002. S2CID 145114044.
  48. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (4): 371–378. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.599.92. doi:10.1037/h0040525. PMID 14049516. S2CID 18309531.
  49. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."double bluff". cambridge.org. Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on December 9, 2025. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  50. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Definition of 'double bluff'". collinsdictionary.com. HarperCollins Publishers Limited. Archived from the original on December 6, 2025. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  51. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."double bluff". ldoceonline.com. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  52. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."double bluff noun". oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com. Oxford University Press. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  53. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Double Bluff". pokerzone.com. Casino City. Archived from the original on May 5, 2024. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  54. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Double Bluff". pokernews.com. iBus Media Limited. Archived from the original on May 5, 2024. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  55. ^ Buller & Burgoon, 1996
  56. ^ Burgoon & Qin, 2006
  57. ^ Ziano, I., & Wang, D. (2021). Slow lies: Response delays promote perceptions of insincerity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000250
  58. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Perusall". app.perusall.com. Archived from the original on December 8, 2023. Retrieved December 12, 2023.
  59. ^ a b Vrij, 2008
  60. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Grieve, Rachel; Hayes, Jordana (January 1, 2013). "Does perceived ability to deceive = ability to deceive? Predictive validity of the perceived ability to deceive (PATD) scale". Personality and Individual Differences. 54 (2): 311–314. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.001.
  61. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Zloteanu, Mircea; Bull, Peter; Krumhuber, Eva G; Richardson, Daniel C (2021). "Veracity judgement, not accuracy: Reconsidering the role of facial expressions, empathy, and emotion recognition training on deception detection". Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 74 (5): 910–927. doi:10.1177/1747021820978851. ISSN 1747-0218. PMC 8056713. PMID 33234008.
  62. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Frank, M. G.; O'Sullivan, M.; Menasco, M. A. (2009). "Human Behavior and Deception Detection". In Voeller, J. G. (ed.). Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security. New York: John Wiley & Sons. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.177.9157. doi:10.1002/9780470087923.hhs299. ISBN 978-0-471-76130-3.
  63. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Rockwell, P. A.; Buller, D. B.; Burgoon, J. K. (1997). "Measurement of deceptive voices: Comparing acoustic and perceptual data". Applied Psycholinguistics. 18 (4): 471–484. doi:10.1017/S0142716400010948. S2CID 144615784.
  64. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Zuckerman, M.; DePaulo, B. M.; Rosenthal, R. (1981). "Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 14. Vol. 14. pp. 1–59. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X. ISBN 978-0-12-015214-8. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  65. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Streeter, L. A.; Krauss, R. M.; Geller, V.; Olson, C.; Apple, W. (1977). "Pitch changes during attempted deception". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35 (5): 345–350. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.5.345. PMID 874738.

General and cited sources

Page Template:Refbegin/styles.css has no content.

Further reading

Template:Disinformation Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Authority control/config' not found.

Retrieved from "https://cosmopedia.co/index.php?title=Deception&oldid=110836"