Abstract
Past research (e.g., DePaulo & Kirkendol, in press) has documented a “motivational impairment effect” in the communication of deception, whereby people who are more highly motivated to get away with their lies (relative to those who are less highly motivated) are less successful at doing so whenever observers can see or hear any of their nonverbal cues. In the present study, we report a conceptual replication of the effect: Subjects who told ingratiating lies under conditions in which they thought that the ability to convey particular impressions was an important skill (high “competence-relevance”) were less successful at getting away with those lies when judges could observe their nonverbal behaviors. We also report a conceptual replication of an unpredicted finding from an earlier study (DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985b): Under the same conditions (ingratiating lies, high competence relevance), women were more likely to show the motivational impairment effect than were men. We predicted in this study that more attractive speakers would be less susceptible to the motivational impairment effect than less attractive speakers. Consistent with this prediction, under high motivational conditions (ingratiating lies, high competence-relevance), more attractive speakers were less likely to show the impairment than were less attractive speakers. Finally, we report suggestive evidence that the motivational impairment effect may occur when subjects are trying deliberately to control simultaneously all of their verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott, A.R., & Sebastian, R.J. (1981). Physical attractiveness and expectations of success.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7 481–486.
Baumeister, R.F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 610–620.
Baumeister, R.F., Hamilton, J.C., & Tice, D.M. (1985). Public versus private expectancy of success: Confidence booster or performance pressure?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 1447–1457.
Baumeister, R.F., & Showers, C.J. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests.European Journal of Social Psychology, 16 361–383.
Baumeister, R.F., & Steinhilber, A. (1984). Paradoxical effects of supportive audiences on performance under pressure: The home field disadvantage in sports championships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 85–93.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 157–215). New York: Academic Press.
Cash, T.T., & Begley, P.J. (1976). Internal-external control, achievement orientation, and physical attractiveness of college students.Psychological Reports, 38 1205–1206.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964).The approval motive. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
DePaulo, B.M., Kenny, D.A., Hoover, C., Webb, W., & Oliver, P.V. (1987). Accuracy of person perception: Do people know what kinds of impressions they convey?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 303–315.
DePaulo, B.M., & Kirkendol, S.E. (1988). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In J. Yuille (Ed.),Credibility assessment (pp. 50–69). Belgium: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
DePaulo, B.M., Epstein, J.A., Hairfield, J.G., Kirkendol, S.E., & Wyer, M. (1988). [Everyday lies]. Unpublished raw data.
DePaulo, B.M., Steele, C.M., & Epstein, J.A. (1989).Telling identity-affirming lies: Effects of importance of success and expectations for success on the communication of deception. Manuscript in preparation.
DePaulo, B.M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 1096–1103.
DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 1713–1722.
DePaulo, B.M., Stone, J.I., & Lassiter, G.D. (1985a). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B.R. Schlenker (Ed.),The self and social life (pp. 323–370) New York: McGraw-Hill.
DePaulo, B.M., Stone, J.I., & Lassiter, G.D. (1985b). Telling ingratiating lies: Effects of target sex and target attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 1191–1203.
Ekman, P. (1981). Mistakes when deceiving.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 364 269–278.
Ekman, P. (1985).Telling lies. New York: W.W. Norton.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.Psychiatry, 32 88–105.
Goldman, W., & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physically attractive are more socially skillful.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 125–130.
Holzman, P.S., & Rousey, C. (1966). The voice as percept.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 78–86.
Holzman, P.S., Rousey, C., & Snyder, C. (1966). On listening to one's own voice: Effects on psychophysiological responses and free associations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 432–441.
Kimble, G., & Perlmutter, L. (1970). The problem of volition.Psychological Review, 77 361–384.
Krauss, R.M. (1981). Impression formation, impression management, and nonverbal behaviors. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.),Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 323–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kraut, R.E. (1980). Humans as lie-detectors: Some second thoughts.Journal of Communication, 30 209–216.
Langer, E.J., & Imber, L.G. (1979). When practice makes imperfect: Debilitating effects of overlearning.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 2014–2024.
Rogers, P.L., Scherer, K.R., & Rosenthal, R. (1971). Content-filtering human speech: A simple electronic system.Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 3 16–18.
Schlenker, B.R., & Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model.Psychological Bulletin, 92 641–669.
Zuckerman, M., DeFrank, R.S, Hall, J.A., Larrance, D.T., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Facial and vocal cues of deception and honesty.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15 378–396.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by an NIMH research grant and an NIMH Research Scientist Award to the first author. We thank Paul Ekman for his comments, and Ann Ashworth, Joan Hairfield, Bruce Hedrick, Morgan Kulow, Margaret Lluy, Terri Michell, Helen Ponte, Carissa Smith, and Debby Winokur for their help with this research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DePaulo, B.M., Kirkendol, S.E., Tang, J. et al. The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions. J Nonverbal Behav 12, 177–202 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987487
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987487