Deception


 * Definition and Etymology**

The word “deception” grows out of the French and the Latin both coupled with an action form we now know as “to deceive.” The discussion of deception would not be complete, however, without a brief mention of the active term to “deceive.” This term seems to have entered the written lexicon a century before “deception” and is literally translated from the Latin “to ensnare or to get the better of by fraud or misleading” (Deception, 2015).

Specifically, the //Oxford English Dictionary// (2015) defines deception as: 1a.The action of deceiving or cheating; b. the fact or condition of being deceived. 2a. That which deceives; a piece of trickery; a cheat / sham

Deconstructed (From the Latin): //De//- : In a bad sense, to put down or subject to some indignity: as dēcipĕre to take in, deceive (v.) -//cept//- : Take or receive -//ion// : act of, state of, result of

When these three elements of deception are pieced together a concept emerges that is primed for communication scholars. The act / result of subjecting / receiving an indignity of falsehood. This definition opens the door to deception as more of a process and exchange than something that is simply inflicted. Deception has a relational, interpersonal component (e.g. to be “take in”). This negative valance and interactive component can be seen throughout the etymology of the concept.

As early as the 15th century there are records of the use of deception as a “the action of deceiving or cheating” being used to describe negative personal acts. In the 20th and 21st centuries deception still hangs onto the negative valance and is more often than not used to describe a problematic method for dealing with difficult social situations and yet the practice is extremely normative. The continued fascination with this concept can be seen in its pervasive use in pop culture. For example, a popular TV show “Lie to Me” which ran from 2009-2011 (Lie to Me, 2015) was based on the life and work of Paul Eckman, a 20th century psychologist and leader on the subject of how to decipher interpersonal deception (Eckman, 2015).


 * Manipulated Messages **

Telling the "whole truth" is stressed as an imperative in courtrooms (The Committee on the Judiciary, 2014) and often desired in close personal relationships (Thomas, Booth-Butterfield, Booth-Butterfield, 1995). However, this notion is made even more complicated when one may be telling the truth, but not the "whole" truth. In that case, is he or she guilty of deceiving? While this grey area is a matter of individual interpretation (Bryant, 2008, p. 23), the elusiveness of a concrete answer is wrapped up in other communicative acts that may, at times, resemble deception.

Deception exists in a realm with other communicative acts such as topic avoidance and ambiguous messages, both of which individuals may employ to achieve interpersonal goals (e.g.saving face - one's own or one's partner's). All manipulated messages share the same end goal of distorting the message content to shape an interaction (or outcome) in a certain way. For example, research on topic avoidance (Golish & Caughlin, 2002) and ambiguous messages (McManus & Nussbaum, 2011) shows that relational partners (romantic and/or family) struggle with clear message production during times of stressful change (e.g. divorce) and may rely on these forms of message manipulation to avoid greater degrees of relational uncertainty.


 * Deception as a Unique Manipulated Message within Interpersonal Communication**

Although deception may be studied in a similar way to other manipulated messages, it differs conceptually in that it is overtly misleading and dishonest. While an individual may avoid topics or engage a relational partner in an ambiguous way, lying is the intentional misrepresentation of a message. Therefore, communication scholars have offered a definition that reflects both the opacity presented in the etymology and the the interactive element that is foundational to the study of communication:

//Deception is any message that intentionally allows or causes the whole truth to become or remain opaqu//e (McCornack & Levine, 1990), //thus causing someone to have false beliefs// (Carson, 2010).

This definition would seem to include topic avoidance or ambiguity as forms of deception, but there are unique aspects of deception that set it apart both culturally and relationally. For example, within western cultural, deceptive messages may be labeled as white ‘trivial’ lies, gray ‘ambiguous’ lies, or real ‘harmful’ lies, all of which may carry different connotations within different circumstances (Bryant, 2008, p. 25). More importantly, while some scholars or cultures may try to articulate a typology of deception, the effects of any type of deception within an interpersonal relationship may be serious (Jacobs, Brashers & Dawson, 1996, p. 99). Clearly conceptualizing the term and finding an accurate way to measure its influence on relationships is therefore a worthwhile pursuit.


 * The Problems of Measuring Deception**

As has already been discussed, the concept of deception is fluid within different cultures and different relational contexts. That being the case, scholars often struggle to quantify the practice of deception and its potential impact on interpersonal relationships. One of the more popular approaches is to measure perceptions of deception within a relationship using number of times one engages in, or is the recipient of, a deceptive speech act. Getting at those elements is, however, very subjective within the research due to the aforementioned subjective nature of the construct; therefore, scholars tend to focus on one element of the concept in each of their measurements. For example, Kim, Kam, Sharkey, and Singelis (2008) devised a Deception Motivation Scale to "measure peoples' motivation to engage in deception either to enhance the self or to protect the other or a third party" (p. 32). On a 7-point Likert scale participants are presented with seven items and asked to rate the degree to which they disagree / agree with each statement (e.g. Self benefit: "I might exaggerate my professional qualifications in order to get a promotion and a raise." Other benefit: "If a friend brings a dish which tasted horrible, I might pretend I like the dish to avoid hurting his/her feelings," p. 32).

The implication associated with how one defines the concept of deception has consequences for how it is measured and the subsequent applications that may be drawn from that research. Although a parsimonious conceptualization may be tough due to its cultural ambiguity and contextual fluidity, a serviceable definition of this ubiquitous practice is needed if scholars are to better understand how its nuanced application impacts relationships.

include component="comments" page="page:Deception" limit="10"
 * References**

Bryant, E. (2008). Real Lies, White Lies and Gray Lies: Towards a Typology of Deception. //Kaleidoscope: A Graduate Journal Of Qualitative Communication Research//, //7//23-48.

Deception. (2015). In //Oxford English dictionary online//. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com

Eckman, P. (2015). //About.// Retrieved from: http://www.paulekman.com/paul-ekman/

Golish, T. D., & Caughlin, J. P. (2002). “I’d rather not talk about it”: adolescents and young adults’ use of topic avoidance in stepfamilies. //Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30// (1), 78-106.

Kim, M., Kam, K. Y., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (2008). Deception: Moral transgression or social necessity?: Cultural-relativity of deception motivations and perceptions of deceptive communication. //Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1// (1), p. 23-50.

Lie to Me (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235099/

McCornack, S., & Levine, T., (1990). When lies are uncovered: Emotional and relational outcomes of discovered deception. //Communication Monographs, 57// (2), 119-138.

McManus, T., & Nussbaum, J., (2011). Ambiguous divorce-related communication, relational closeness, relational satisfaction, and communication satisfaction. //Western Journal of Communication 75// (5) 500-522.

The Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. (2014). //Federal Rules of Evidence.// Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Thomas, C. E., Booth-Butter field, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1995). Perceptions of deception, divorce disclosure, and communication satisfaction with parents. Western Journal of Communication, 59(3), 228-245.