IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v24y2015i2d10.1007_s10726-014-9389-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leveraging ICT Capabilities in Potentially Deceptive Interactions: An Integrated Theoretical Model to Improve Detectability

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew L. Jensen

    (University of Oklahoma)

  • Laku Chidambaram

    (University of Oklahoma)

Abstract

With the proliferating use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), deception is increasingly being perpetrated through technology-mediated channels. Deception can result in substantial costs to individuals and organizations. However, the mechanisms by which ICT capabilities influence the detection of deception remain largely unexplored. This paper discusses how specific ICT capabilities can be leveraged to detect deception before, during and after the exchange of deceptive messages. We develop an integrated theoretical model and detail propositions grouped under two broad media capabilities—transmissibility and extensibility—derived from Saussurean structuralist theory that views ideas and artifacts in terms of binary opposition. Further, our theoretical model includes two key contingencies that affect deception detection—the overtness of deception and the skill disparity between the deceiver and the receiver. Finally, we conclude by discussing the implications of our theory for practice and offer suggestions for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew L. Jensen & Laku Chidambaram, 2015. "Leveraging ICT Capabilities in Potentially Deceptive Interactions: An Integrated Theoretical Model to Improve Detectability," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 271-298, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:24:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-014-9389-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-014-9389-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-014-9389-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-014-9389-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judee K. Burgoon & Fang Chen & Douglas P. Twitchell, 2010. "Deception and its Detection Under Synchronous and Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 345-366, July.
    2. John R. Carlson & Joey F. George, 2004. "Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery of Deceptive Communication: The Relative Influence of Richness and Synchronicity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 191-210, March.
    3. Zhengrui Jiang & Vijay S. Mookerjee & Sumit Sarkar, 2005. "Lying on the Web: Implications for Expert Systems Redesign," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 131-148, June.
    4. Peter Fleming & Stelios C. Zyglidopoulos, 2008. "The Escalation of Deception in Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 837-850, September.
    5. John R. Carlson & Joey F. George & Judee K. Burgoon & Mark Adkins & Cindy H. White, 2004. "Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 5-28, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kent Marett & Joey F. George, 2013. "Barriers to Deceiving Other Group Members in Virtual Settings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 89-115, January.
    2. Ryan T. Wright & Matthew L. Jensen & Jason Bennett Thatcher & Michael Dinger & Kent Marett, 2014. "Research Note ---Influence Techniques in Phishing Attacks: An Examination of Vulnerability and Resistance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 385-400, June.
    3. Wally Smieliauskas & Kathryn Bewley & Ulfert Gronewold & Ulrich Menzefricke, 2018. "Misleading Forecasts in Accounting Estimates: A Form of Ethical Blindness in Accounting Standards?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 437-457, October.
    4. Kishore Singh & Pran Boolaky & Kamil Omoteso, 2022. "The Relationship Between Politics, Legal System and Financial Reporting on Fraud," Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Faculty of Accounting and Management Information Systems, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 21(3), pages 397-430, September.
    5. Jeroen Ven & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Dishonesty under scrutiny," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 86-99, July.
    6. den Nieuwenboer, N.A. & Kaptein, S.P., 2007. "Spiraling Down into Corruption: A Dynamic Analysis of the Social Identity Processes that Cause Corruption in Organizations to Grow," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-086-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Jean-Philippe Bouilloud & Ghislain Deslandes & Guillaume Mercier, 2019. "The Leader as Chief Truth Officer: The Ethical Responsibility of “Managing the Truth” in Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 1-13, June.
    8. Felicity Fallon & Barry J. Cooper, 2015. "Corporate Culture and Greed — The Case of the Australian Wheat Board," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 25(1), pages 71-83, March.
    9. Carole L. Jurkiewicz & Robert A. Giacalone, 2016. "Organizational Determinants of Ethical Dysfunctionality," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 1-12, June.
    10. Guido Palazzo & Franciska Krings & Ulrich Hoffrage, 2012. "Ethical Blindness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 323-338, September.
    11. Cockrell, Cam & Stone, Dan N., 2011. "Team discourse explains media richness and anonymity effects in audit fraud cue brainstorming," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 225-242.
    12. Seraphim Voliotis, 2017. "Establishing the Normative Standards that Determine Deviance in Organizational Corruption: Is Corruption Within Organizations Antisocial or Unethical?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 147-160, January.
    13. John Carlson & Dawn Carlson & Merideth Ferguson, 2011. "Deceptive Impression Management: Does Deception Pay in Established Workplace Relationships?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(3), pages 497-514, May.
    14. Mikko Vesa & Frank den Hond & J. Tuomas Harviainen, 2019. "On the Possibility of a Paratelic Initiation of Organizational Wrongdoing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 1-15, November.
    15. Asunur Cezar & Srinivasan Raghunathan & Sumit Sarkar, 2020. "Adversarial Classification: Impact of Agents’ Faking Cost on Firms and Agents," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(12), pages 2789-2807, December.
    16. Yuanfeng Cai & Zhengrui Jiang & Vijay Mookerjee, 2017. "How to Deal with Liars? Designing Intelligent Rule-Based Expert Systems to Increase Accuracy or Reduce Cost," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 268-286, May.
    17. Eenkhoorn, P. & Graafland, J.J., 2010. "Lying in Business : Insights from Hannah Arendt’s ‘Lying in Politics’," Other publications TiSEM 3227207d-c563-4afd-ae08-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Mary Hogue & Julia Levashina & Hongli Hang, 2013. "Will I Fake It? The Interplay of Gender, Machiavellianism, and Self-monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 399-411, October.
    19. Mariia Petryk & Michael Rivera & Siddharth Bhattacharya & Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar, 2022. "How Network Embeddedness Affects Real-Time Performance Feedback: An Empirical Investigation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1467-1489, December.
    20. Patricia Tegtmeier & Corinna Weber & Sabine Sommer & Anita Tisch & Sascha Wischniewski, 2022. "Criteria and Guidelines for Human-Centered Work Design in a Digitally Transformed World of Work: Findings from a Formal Consensus Process," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-31, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:24:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-014-9389-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.