The DOI matches its Crossref record; 123 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpersonal Deception Theory
Abstract
Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) represents a merger of interpersonal communication and deception principles designed to better account for deception in interactive contexts. At the same time, it bas the potential to enlighten theories related to (a) credibility and truthful communication and (b) interpersonal communication. Presented here are key definitions, assumptions related to the critical attributes and key features of interpersonal communication and deception, and 18 general propositions from which specific testable hypotheses can be derived. Research findings relevant to the propositions are also summarized.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Naegele, K. D., & Goffman, E. (1956) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089106 · Cited by 25,991
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,259
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
Goffman, E. (2023) · Social Theory Re-Wired · doi:10.4324/9781003320609-59 · Cited by 17,562
The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092623 · Cited by 12,001
Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage
Brown, P. (1987) · Cited by 11,894
Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Gumperz, J. J. (1987) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813085 · Cited by 10,438
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798
Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior
JONES, E. E. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,760
Review of personality and social psychology
Wheeler, L. S., & Shaver, P. R. (1980) · UMI Books on Demand · Cited by 3,593
Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492 · Cited by 2,374
Cited by
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 · Cited by 2,479
Accuracy of Deception Judgments
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 · Cited by 1,953
Knowledge hiding in organizations
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.737 · Cited by 1,511
Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1107.4557 · Cited by 1,008
Truth of Varying Shades: Analyzing Language in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking
Rashkin, H., Choi, E., Jang, J. Y., Volkova, S., & Choi, Y. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1317 · Cited by 870
Metadata
- Authors
- Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K.
- Venue
- Communication Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 203-242
- ISSN
- 1050-3293 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2885
- OpenAlex
- W2163220194
- Cited by
- 1,195
- References
- 123
- FWCI
- 9.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpersonal Deception Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
- The paper
- Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal Deception Theory. Communication Theory. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
