For the assignment, I decided to lie about an experience I had in Japan and tell the truth about an experience I had in Hawaii. The former took place in the psychological space of instant messaging, while the latter took place in a face to face conversation. In both cases, I was able to convince my two friends that I was telling the truth.
I told my friend about visiting a nun cafe (waitresses dressing up as nuns) in Japan. I decided on instant messaging because the near synchronous aspect of it provided a medium which appears believable. He can message me questions and it'll feel like I'm answering them in real-time. However, since it is only near synchronous, I also had an opportunity to go on websites to confirm my own lies and to help answer any questions that might reveal my deception. For example, I was able to link him to websites describing the cafe. According to Hancock's theory, this near synchronous medium would allow for more unplanned lies to occur. Although this lie was planned, the medium still provided enough synchronicity for unplanned fabricated details. These details supported my lie and made myself seem more credible. This level of tailorability and the aforementioned time to edit decreased the likelihood of deception detection, as predicted by Carlson and confirmed by my friend. This media was highly recordable and the other party lived in the adjacent room, so it was especially believable. Hancock's theory predicts that I would not be lying under these conditions (high recordability and close distance), but I used that prediction to my advantage when I choose instant messaging. In addition, I choose a particularly close (relationship-wise) friend to test my deception. I already had his trust, as well as knowledge of his experience with Japan. He knew I went to Japan, but I never disclosed my supposed visit to the cafe before our conversation.
I talked to my other friend about snorkeling in Hawaii. I choose to perform this interaction face to face because it allowed me more freedom to add cues. I was able to gesture a swimming motion to describe the fish I've seen. It also allowed me to sound more excited and confident in my description. Additionally, it allowed me to carry on without pausing, resulting in additional confidence. I noticed that the details I used were a lot more vivid than during my lie about Japan. As I was only providing superficial details in my instant message conversation, I was describing feelings in face to face. According to my friend, these feelings were detected in my tone of voice and I seemed more genuine. At first, he seemed a bit skeptical of my even going to Hawaii, which seems to go against the truth bias characteristic of ftf, but he finally believed me.
Comments:
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-facebook-face.html#comments
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-im-friends-with-digital.html#comments
3 comments:
Henry,
I enjoyed reading your post and I think that you brought up very interesting points in regards to your lie about the experience you had (or didn’t have for that matter) in Japan. I agree with your point that since instant messaging is near synchronous, you were able seem like you were answering in real-time but also had the chance to look up random details on websites. Even if it took you an extra minute to answer them, a simple “brb” probably would have been sufficient in order for them not to get suspicious, while in person you wouldn’t be able to awkwardly pause without it being obvious that you were lying. Further elaborating on synchronicity, I think you made a good point by applying Hancock’s theory and mentioning that the medium allowed for you to come up with unplanned fabricated details to enhance your lie. The fact that you chose to lie to a good friend brings up an interesting aspect of how credibility affects the probability that others will trust what you are saying. Since your friend knew you went to Japan, it seems like your factitious travel experience could have reasonably happened making it much more believable.
It seems to me that IM is an excellent venue for lying. As you point out, Hancock's feature-based theory supports this to some extent. Though I find it interesting that in his study, IM ranked relatively low as a productive medium for lies. Your experience, especially your careful preparation to make the lie a good one, seems to support Social Distance Theory. The mediated, leaner environment proved to be beneficial for your made-up story.
Interesting that you noticed a lack of the truth bias characteristic when you actually told the truth Face-to-face. I wonder if your FtF encounter was marred by the fact that this was an assignment, and might have detracted from how natural you would have otherwise sounded. In my assignment, I admit that it felt funny to be so focused on the fact that I was telling the truth, this time.
Hey Henry,
So first, I am really jealous that you went to Japan because I have always wanted to go there. Second, I really liked how you used the internet to your advantage and got me thinking about how even though we consider the internet a kind of lean media, it is rich with information. Ironic! I also really liked how you talked about how you used more than just facial expressions but actual body movements to tell about your snorkeling trip. When I was completing this assignment, I also found that I gave way more details when I was telling the truth than when I was telling the lie. Last, something I also came upon during my experience during this assignment was whether or not our friends do not really question our experiences that we had in foreign places where they have never been. Do you think our friends tend to question our validity when its something they can relate to as opposed to something they know nothing about?
Post a Comment