For this assignment to work I decided to would choose a person that did not know me well, yet would still be interested in what I had to say. The media that I choose were Ftf for the rich and AIM chat for the lean. The traveling memory that I lied about in my Ftf conversation was that I went to
Lying in the Ftf proved to be an easier feat since I was able to make eye contact and do some hand movements to really make the case that I was not lying. Furthermore, I was easily able to look at the person I was lying to and play off his non-verbal cues. For example, when I said that I lost a $1000 dollars, his facial expression changed to disbelief and immediately I was able to reply that I was not lying and he had to believe me. This type of action would have not been possible to perform on a CMC where I would not be able to observe the non-verbal cues of my friend. My Ftf experience goes against the Social Distance Theory which states that we lie most in a lean media since it is uncomfortable to lie Ftf. However, this theory would be true if I were telling a lie to my friend that was outrageous and then he would be able to detect all my non-verbal and physiological cues such as gaze aversion, hand finger movements, ‘ah’ speech disturbances etc. Since I had the time to plan for the lie, I was not nervous and was able to convince him about my loss in
When I asked him about the deception methods he used to detect the lies he said for the Ftf chat he looked for steady eye contact, the tone of my voice and any interruptions in my speech. These non-verbal cues were very important and I saw how the truth bias came into play in this whole situation. Since all these cues were lost in the CMC, my friends was very hesitant to believe me and relied purely on how outrageous the information I told him was.
7 comments:
Saurin,
I think it’s really interesting that you asked your friend how he attempted to detect your lies. It was quite informative to learn that your friend was thinking in terms of lean and rich media too (especially how he said he used nonverbal cues to attempt to detect your lies). This all goes along with the Media Richness Theory, in that people lie more often in FtF interactions, and they lie least frequently in e-mail interactions. In class we have discussed that people are more likely to lie in synchronous communications because they can see how the other person reacts to their lies, and alter their actions based on the response. You probably were able to alter your actions based on your friends reactions, which caused him to believe your lie. Despite the fact that you were honest with him in CMC, the asynchronicity of an IM probably added to his doubt.
Saurin, I thought it was very funny and interesting that you had a more difficult time convincing your friend that the real story was true than you did for the fake story. However, I don’t fully agree with what you said about your actions supporting or contradicting the different theories. Both Social Distance Theory and Media Richness Theory have a predictive component to them, as you’ve observed, in that they each anticipate when and using which media we will lie. For the purpose of this task, however, you chose which medium to lie in and which to tell the truth in based on what you were assigned. To really analyze whether the predictions these theories make are correct, you would have to observe your decisions when telling real lies in a normal setting. Lastly, it was cool that you asked your friend about the techniques he used and not just whether or not he could tell you were lying.
Looks like your friend was on the right track as to how to tell whether or not you were lying. His strategy goes along with the Media Richness theory. Pretty funny though that your friend did not believe your real story and believed your fake story. The fact that you used instant messenger to tell your story is probably what led him to doubt your story, since he could not really pick up on your visual cues and body language. However, in your face to face interaction you could manipulate your lie based on his reaction, like when you immediately replied that you were not lying and he should believe you when you saw his face drop. Again, this agrees with the media richness theory saying people lie the most in rich media. At least you didn’t actually lose a thousand bucks, that would’ve been rough.
Hey Saurin,
Well first, let me commend you on being able to lie in the richer, face to face media. I am horrible at keeping a straight face no matter how hard I try. Interestingly, though, it is not because I get uncomfortable, I just am bad at it and think it will throw off my karma. Even so, the points you made about reading his reaction I think are right on track and are very manipulative which is awesome. Additionally, I did find it interesting that you decided to use the richer media to tell the more extravagant story which also happened to be your lie. I wonder how your friend would have reacted to that noteworthy story online except I do agree that it was easier to make him believe you FTF because you may seem more genuine in person. This is because, as he said, you had eye contact and good pitch which I think are very important factors. One last question, how many details did you reveal about each story? Do you think we tend to be more detailed when we are telling the lie or the truth?
It interests me that it was so easy to lie in a face-to-face situation. The social distance theory would disagree saying that the leaner the medium the more chance there would be for deception. I agree with your choice of the medium richness theory in this case. It would appear that depending on the person and the lies both theories can be seen as correct solely based on the individual case. I was also excited to see that you told what your friend was looking for to tell whether you were lying or not. You were prepared for him to be observing and lied in such a way that he believed it to be true. The ease at which this was done in a face-to-face situation could not have been done the same way in a leaner medium, but does not necessarily mean it is easier to lie in a face-to-face situation. I liked that you brought up that in a face-to-face interaction you were able to pick up on cues/reactions from him as well that allowed you to adjust and lie even more believably.
Post a Comment