Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
We all have different relationships with one another, one of them being interpersonal relationship. To separate interpersonal relationship from other forms, we must observe the number of people involved, their physical closeness to one another, use of sensory channels in the process of communication, and the feedback resulting from the communication (Littlejohn 1999). In interpersonal relationship, very few individuals are involved, and the participants do communicate in very close proximity to one another. Participants always give immediate feedback or response and the form makes use of many sensory channels. It is also true that interpersonal relationship occurs between individuals who have relative knowledge of each other over a period. These people must recognize one another as unique individuals, holding some shared interests and objectives (Anderson & Ross 1998).
Interpersonal Deception Theory
Theories have been nurtured to support and explain interpersonal relationships. One of the many theories is Interpersonal Deception Theory. The theory was developed by Judee Bugoon and David Buller in 1996. This theory proscribes to the idea that, deception occurs in almost all conversations between two people who are intimate with one another (Griffin 1997). In the cause of communicating, equivocation, falsification, and concealment of information occurs. This happens either voluntarily or involuntarily. A deception is a dishonest message that is passed on from one individual to another in the course of communication. Here, information is knowingly manipulated by one individual the deceiver, and passed on to the other party in the most sincere manner possible. The deceiver may of course be unaware of his deceptions but obviously gives himself away through a process called leakage (Mahajan et al. 2001).
Miron Zuckerman and Robert Driver in The leakage hierarchy say that, there is a basic assumption that our nonverbal behaviour is to some extent unintentional. Whenever we try to deceive other individuals, our body language will always give us away. The face is the most important part of our body that discloses indications of deception. By looking at the attempted control, arousal, the affective approach, and cognitive factors in the process of communication, one may be able to uncover the deception (Wood 1997).
In the course of interpersonal relationship, one party may fear to be perceived and misinterpreted by the other party as telling lies. This of course comes with a lot of stress. Some individuals think that they are clever enough to interpret when and if the other party is telling a lie. However, what such individuals believe to be lies may only be fears from the other party of being disbelieved and misinterpreted in the course of communication.
This theory holds the perspective that, it is always very hard to spot a liar. Available research reveals that only a small number of people are able to spot dishonesty in excess of 50 % of the time. Motivation, experience, and adequate training are important components in trying to detect and deal with deception in our communication. Liars often stare at someone and avoid direct eye contact. Another sign to look out for is a recurring motion. Liars frequently tap their feet. There is also an increase or decrease of speech rate when one is telling a lie (Mahajan et al. 2001).
Individuals, in their communication processes, attempts to stage-manage the messages and information in an effort to deceive others. This manipulation causes them a lot of anxiety and uneasiness regarding the possibility of their untruthful communication being detected. Concurrently, the individuals who the information was intended for always try to unveil the truthfulness of the message or information. This brings a lot of suspicion between the parties involved on the validity of the information (Dupuy 2001).
Application of Interpersonal Deception Theory to a specific interpersonal problem
My friends name is Jake. My friendship with Jake started when I was about 10 years old, when his family moved to our estate from another city. He loved cycling and swimming my childhood sports. Immediately we met, a strong bond grew between us. He was a Chinese national, having very different cultural and social orientation from me, but that did not suppress my friendship with Jake from budding. My parents were mad at me because of my newfound friend but failed in their attempt to separate us since we shared many interests. Over a period of six months, we had developed a very intimate relationship. This relationship has matured over time and Jake is still my best friend even today. My communication with him now is interpersonal since we have many things in common. He knows all my secrets and I know his. Nevertheless, over time, I have discovered that there is an element of deceit in our communication. This deception comes from both sides. There are many interpersonal relationship theories that can explain my relationship and communication with Jake, and the source of our deception. Below, I attempt to discuss Interpersonal Deception Theory in relation to our friendship.
Last weekend, Jake and I were invited to a birthday party of one of our friends in college. It was to be held at a local pub starting from seven oclock in the evening. Our girlfriends had also been invited to the party. However, few minutes prior to the kickoff, I got a call from my younger sister informing me that my mother was seriously ill in bed. I cancelled all my plans for the birthday party and headed home to take care of my mother. Jake, together with our girlfriends proceeded to the party.
While in the party having some good time, Jake got too intoxicated and kissed my girlfriend in front of his own girlfriend. This of course did not auger well with Jakes girlfriend and she called me at the dead of the night protesting at the sad turn of events at the party. I could not believe that Jake, my best friend could have done that to my girlfriend. We shared so much with him ever since we were little children. The fact that he had decided to flirt with my girlfriend in my absence gave me a long sleepless night.
The next day I confronted Jake at the cafeteria. He did not have the information that his own girlfriend had called me last night to protest against Jake kissing my girlfriend. Therefore, Jake proceeded to tell me how the party was good and how he did not even take an ounce of alcohol. I tried to tell him that someone in the party had told me that Jake had taken excess alcohol but he stood his ground and maintained that he never tasted alcohol that night. I noted that Jake wore an unusual stare and never wanted us to have direct eye contact. He paced up and down, while informing me about the party, and frequently tapped his left foot on the stairway. This was very unusual of Jake. I soon realized the version given by his girlfriend was the right one when Jake suddenly became confused in his speech and his speech rate decreased. I knew he was lying to me.
Interpersonal Deception Theory brings into light three features of deceptive information that passes from one individual to another. First, there is the central deceptive message, which is verbally delivered (Dupuy 2001). This is the message that Jake was telling me about the party last night. The information was deceptive in that he said he did not drink while he almost passed out due to overdrinking. He lied that they had a very good time with his girlfriend while they almost fought at the bar. He also lied that he had a good time with my girlfriend while infact my girlfriend had vowed never to talk to him again, due to what he had done at the bar.
Secondly, there is the ancillary message or information. This may include both vocal and non-vocal features of communication that discloses the reliability and truthfulness of a particular piece of information. Thirdly, there are the unintentional behaviors, mostly non-vocal which gives an individual away and exposes his deceit. To Jake, this was the confusion and decrease in speech rate, the unusual gaze that I had never seen before, avoidance of direct eye contact and the recurring motion in the form of frequent foot tapings (Dupuy 2001).
Practical solutions to interpersonal deception and their success rate
People deceive others for varied and complex reasons. Deception in our communication is either strategic or purposeful. In their effort to add a sense of truth in their deception, individuals vocally manipulate the information substance. Like Jake, their communication lacks in clarity and is often irrelevant, impersonal, indirect and incomplete. One of the basic solutions is to check for the incompleteness of the information or message given by an individual. Research shows that incomplete statements, lacking in information, are frequently employed by deceivers in their communication (Infante, Rancer, & Womack 1997).
One also should be on the look out for lack of fluency in the course of communication (Leverton 2006). If the information is conveyed in such a way that it is not understood by the receiver, chances of deceit are very high. People should always ask for more information if they are dissatisfied by the responses they get. In my case, I asked Jake about what was making my girlfriend not to talk to him even after they had a good time at the party but the feedback was not forthcoming. I knew there was something up his sleeves. The success rate of using this strategy to check against deceit is high.
An individual must also look at the indirectness or the irrelevance of the information given. Deceivers, in their own wisdom, give information that may be partly relevant but lacking in substance (Leverton 2006). When someone looks at these imbalances, he will notice the falsification involved. The success rate of this strategy is also high.
Individuals should also evaluate how the message is understandable to them (Littlejohn 1999). Some communication is just ambiguous, vague and equivocal. This, if not well checked, can be used to channel lies and propaganda. Deceivers always want to use a language that can be interpreted differently in different situations and by different people. This gives the deceiver an easy way out incase he is challenged by the receiver of such information. People should always make sure that the messages given are understandable to them and bears only one interpretation. Jake was giving me irrelevant information about the party while leaving out the relevant details. Using this strategy leaves no room for deceivers to spread their trade.
Another practical solution is to gauge how the individual takes accountability for the assertions they makes. Deceivers always attempt to distance themselves from the assertions they make. They achieve this by using a language that changes the subject or assertion to another place or time. They modify the language used and talk of general things instead of specific things. The like to apportion blame to a third party (Leverton 2006). I used this approach to ask Jake to be specific about the details of the party from the time they went in to their departure. I realized that there were so many missing links and thus discovered that Jake was lying to me.
Critical evaluation of Interpersonal Deception Theory
From my experience with Jake, I personally believe that Interpersonal Deception Theory is a humanistic theory. It relies on predictions that individuals attempt to deceive other individuals during the course of communication. The receiver of such information always tries to evaluate the communication actions and behaviour to be sure of the soundness of the information. The theory lacks in predictive power. It cannot soundly forecast the reliability or validity of a specific occurrence between two individuals because such an occurrence is dependent on so many issues (Dupay 2001).
Our communication as individuals depends in so many things. We must first ask ourselves if the deception was a pre-meditated action by one party, how the party planned the deception, the time used in planning, and the penalties of the deception if it is detected. We must also look at the probable success of avoiding detection. The theory sheds light on the diverse types of deceptions, the reasons behind deceptions, and the aspects that assess whether an effort at deception will bear fruit (Anderson & Ross 1998).
In my evaluation, I can say that Interpersonal Deception Theory is a very important theory for individuals who try to deceive others as well as those who think they have fallen prey to deceit from someone. It can help an individual to evaluate the vocal as well as the non-vocal communication behaviors to discover if an individual has deceived (Dupuy 2001). Though the theory is humanistic and self-serving, it can be effectively used to preserve interpersonal relationship. In the course of our communication and association with one another, we have all lied and we have also being lied to. Therefore, it is a practical theory in solving our communication predicaments.
References
Anderson, R., & Ross, V. 1998. Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St Martins Press.
Dupay, J.P. 2001 Interpersonal deception. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Griffin, E 1997. A first look at communication theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Infante, D.A., Rancer, A.S., & Womack, D.F. 1997. Building communication theory (3rd ed.). Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Leverton, R 2006. Five findings from Interpersonal Deception Theory that every negotiator should know. Texas B.A: Wake Forest University.
Littlejohn, S.W. 1999. Theories of human communication (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mahajan, D., Michelle, P., Naama, S., Mark, N., & Audrey, K 2001. Interpersonal Deception Theory. New York: St Martins Press.
Wood, J.T. 1997. Communication theories in action: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.