Firstly, I would like to make the disclaimer that I am the worst liar in the world. This is evidenced by the results of my experiment. I am, however, a good storyteller, so I kept my friend interested when I told her of my ‘treks across the globe’. My lovely housemate Maria volunteered herself for the project, however I mistakenly asked for her assistance after realizing that she already knew a little about my traveling history. This made the challenge of lying more difficult, and may have affected the results of this experiment.
Nevertheless, I was excited about testing my skills as a deviant on Maria. First, I told her face to face of my travels to Bangladesh with my best friend, Sumaya. I didn’t see too much of the country since there wasn’t all that much to see, however I spent most of the time in Sumaya’s family’s house, where most of her extended family lives. They were incredibly nice to me, even though they could only speak broken English at best, and fed me Bengali food in mass quantities. I went on to describing how in Bangladesh they have no toilets, and how people would have to do their #2 in a hole in the bathroom.
My second face to face story was a brief synopsis of my trip to California two summers ago, where I visited my family and did some trite things like visit the Golden Gate Bridge. It wasn’t extraordinary, but it was a story to tell Maria.
I think readers of this blog might have already guessed that the fake story, although very detailed, was the first. My mistake in this experiment is that previously, in my knowing Maria, I have already shared with her my most riveting stories of traveling to France and Italy. I had no problem being equivocal yet fluent in my story about Bangladesh, which agrees with the Media Richness Theory in that the more dodgy communication becomes, the richer one’s medium of preference becomes. Sumaya had told me these stories before, and I simply retold them as if I were on the trip myself. Interestingly enough, Maria did not use non-verbal and physiological means to detect my truthfulness (methods that are available distinctly for FtF interaction), but simply used logic in her understanding. According to her, people tend to embellish when they lie, and she discovered mine right on the spot. This mindset does not necessarily add to evidence proving Media Richness Theory.
Webmail saved the day as my lean medium for Globe-Trekker journal keeping. Digital deception came strongly into play here as I looked up tourism facts on Thailand to tell her my story. In this lean medium, I was given more time to research a feasible lie rather than be forced to think on my feet, and thus was able to tell her of the mountainous landscape of Phuket and its world-famous diving areas. The Impression Management Model became very apparent to me as I found it very comfortable to fabricate a tall tale via e-mail. The locus of my conversation was myself, which gave me reason to prefer a lean medium that gave me more control. Depaulo’s Social Distance Theory was the clincher, since I actually found it uncomfortable to lie about a subject I was not very knowledgeable about. Again, a “socially distant” media like email suited my purposes. One thing I realized that didn’t completely match the Impression Management Theory in this case was that my story had a positive valence, however I felt as if I preferred talking about Phuket in a mediated condition as opposed to an unmediated one. Talking via email gave me time to research my story.
My second story via email was a factual story about a trip to Ontario when I was much younger. It was somewhat vague in memory since it happened when I was about 4 years old, however I remembered vivid details like wearing a yellow parka that I thought was pretty nifty at Niagra Falls. Maria was able to see through this set of stories as well since the latter sounded more like I was telling a story, i.e. a natural series of events was occurring, as opposed to the story about Phuket which seemed more factual.
From my experiences, certain theories matched with particular lies on a situational basis. Media Richness Theory worked with the FtF Bangladesh story, but not with O’Sullivan’s Model or Social Distance Theory. The Impression Management Model and Social Distance Theory worked well with the CMC Phuket story, but not with Media Richness Theory. Although Maria saw through both lies, my rationale for having created each was concurrent with certain theories. The most important thing to consider, however, is if I need to work on my lying skills….
1 comment:
I thought you made several interesting points here. People definitely do embellish when they lie in attempts to overcompensate for any doubts their listener might have. I see why Maria didn’t believe your Bangladesh story with the whole elaborate explanation of the crazy food and the going-to-the-bathroom in a hole.
I thought your link between the theories we’ve studied and your e-mail message was highly accurate. The IMM was totally on point, and the SDT was particularly applicable, given a situation you are uncomfortable/anxious in handling. However, when you could manage your impression better thanks to this asynchronous mode of communication, your results may not have been much better since this, too, was embellished (thanks to your abnormally extensive knowledge of travel facts and figures).
Finally, I find it both ironic and accurate that she believed your Niagara Falls story, despite the hazy detail. Though it was vague and lacking detail, the sense of humility and the funny memory of the parka made it seem all the more realistic, and subsequently more believable.
Post a Comment