Interpersonal Deception Theory

Furthermore, the IDT is explained and its importance to the society relating to the police brutality. The last part is the conclusion which summarizes the whole paper. Introduction The Interpersonal deceptive Theory tries to explain how different people deal with their partners during face-to-face communication, in their perceived or actual deception, and on their conscious and subconscious levels (Kory Floyd 124). However, this theory suggests that most of the people are unable to fully estimate their deception detection ability. Early research in the same area showed that deception was not classified as an activity for communication. ii) Concealment In this type of deception, deception communication results because the sender deliberately omits some material facts in his or her statement. iii) Equivocation This type of deception is mainly constituted in the deception behavior called roster.

In this case, the sender continuously skirts his or her issues by using statements such as “for instance,” responding indirectly to some statements or changing the subject matter of the topic. Some of the individuals believe that they have the capability to tell deception in their partners during their interpersonal communication. It is believed that detecting deception not only requires listening to your partners but also observing your senders’ nonverbal cues (Spencer 163). Communication Exchange The negotiation ability utilizes the two-way communication which is an improved one-way communication with very little interaction between the sender and the receiver. According to Grossman (162), the two-way communication is more interactive; in this case, the two parties (the sender and the receiver) are in a position to adjust their behaviors depending on the feedback from the other party in terms of the non-verbal and verbal cues.

However, as the nature of human beings, they are able to communicate on the auto-pilot. In addition, it is important to use all the consciousness and the complicated components of the communication process in attempting to deceive. This is what is called cognitive overload. Characteristics of deceptive communication The following are some of the indicators of deceptive communication. i. One or both parties use a lot of vague and uncertain expressions such as “I will see” when trying to refer to his ability to do something. ii. Similarly, deceivers take longer before they make their responses and at times do not maintain the interactivity with the other partner. The major challenge is that it is very difficult to detect these behaviors unless they are measured against the baseline of the sender.

The concept of Leakage This is the deception nonverbal characteristic behavior which is beyond the control of the sender’s consciousness and it signals the dishonesty of the sender (Shuyuan 21-41). A four-factor model was created to explore the occurrences of such leakage. In this model, any deceptive behavior from individuals can be detected by looking at the sender using factors such as their talk or presentation which appears rehearsed and too polished. Therefore, the affected sender is unable to fully employ the mechanism to mask such deceit. Acknowledge your limitations: The IDT indicates that the majority of the people are unable to detect deception. Therefore, it is vital that a person should not over-rely on the perceived abilities of deception especially in the context of negotiation (Mediate.

com, 2018). ii. Understand the reason why people lie: some people engage in compulsory deception because they are habitual liars. Watch your own suspicion: one should control himself not to misinterpret behaviors as leakage. vii. Realize you are at a disadvantage: the sender should be able to detect the receiver’s doubt in his message and adjust accordingly even before the receiver detects it. viii. Know your opposition: negotiating with someone you are familiar with and respect increases truth bias and a lie bias may result from the parties if they are based on mistrust. This theory is applicable in most areas where two-way communication is evidence. For instance, understanding the communication leakage and relating it to the real life communication environment can help someone survive the brutal treatment of the police.