Truth or text: People more likely to lie on smartphone

More honesty in face-to-face dealings: study

Have you ever sent a text message to someone to say sorry you’re late for a meeting but you’re stuck in traffic, when the reality is you slept in and you’re still in your pyjamas? Well, you’re not alone. A study by the University of B.C.’S Sauder School of Business has found that when people text, they are more likely to lie than when they use other forms of communications.

The study found face-toface communications were more likely to be honest.

Also, talking via video conferencing, such as Skype, was found to be more honest.

“That was kind of surprising to us, but what we theorized is happening here is that it’s a spotlight effect,” said Sauder associate professor Ronald Cenfetelli, co-author on the paper. “There is still that novelty to (video conferencing) and when you use it, it is like having a camera stuck in your face.”

The study compared different forms of technology-mediated communication such as texting, audio and video conferencing to each other and to face-to-face contact.

Participants in the study were divided into two groups (buyers and sellers), with the “brokers” being given the task of selling a stock they knew to be worthless. The brokers had a financial incentive to get the buyers to buy the stock.

The study found that sellers who communicated via text were more likely to deceive the buyers than ones who communicated via video conference or in person. But among those who did look their buyers in the eye and lie, either in person or on video conference, they were more likely to be forgiven by the people they deceived.

When the dupe was revealed, the buyers were given money and told it was up to them to decide how much to share with the sellers. The buyers who were deceived via text weren’t as inclined to share with their deceivers as the ones who had an in-person or video conference connection.

“We thought people who were lied to were more likely to take revenge but the surprise was people in technology-mediated conditions were more upset than the people in the faceto-face conditions,” said Cenfetelli.

“What we theorized was in a face-to-face communication there is a greater degree of rapport building. . . . We believe it acts as a buffer, as sort of an inoculant.”

“The thing I personally take away from this study the most is this idea that if you have anything controversial or emotionally laden to communicate to others, really consider doing it face to face.”