NorthwesternUniversity
People, Place & TimeThe Daily Rhythms of Deception in
Interpersonal Text Messaging
CornellUniversity
ICA 2013London, UK
LindsayReynolds
JeremyBirnholtz
JeffHancock
MadelineSmith
2
Butler Lies• Often used to avoid social
interaction or explain a communication failure
• Serve to maintain relationships
• Depend on norms and technological features
• Exploit ambiguities in mediated communication
People•Communication varies
by relationship types and closenessAgosto et al. 2012, Baym 2010
•Mixed findings about who people lie most toDePaulo & Kashy 1998, Cole 2001
• Butler lies told to maintain relationshipsReynolds et al. 2011, Birnholtz et al. 2013
3
4
Who are lies and butler lies in text messaging told to?
Research Question 1
5
Time•Temporal context
affects perceptionsGoffman 1966
•Message timing can effect relationshipsWalther and Tidwell 1995
• People delay opening and respondingReynolds et al. 2011
"clock" by azmichelle on flickr
6
When are lies and butler lies in text messaging told?
Research Question 2
Place•Context important for
interpreting messages
• Location sharing apps increasingly popularZickuhr 2012
•Decreased ambiguity threatens butler lyingBirnholtz et al. 2010, Reynolds et al. 2013
7
8
How does location sharing affect butler lying in text messaging?
Research Question 3
9
Method: Butler Messaging App
Study Procedure1. Pre-study online materials
• Online consent form• Deception Tutorial• Download and install app
2. Use app for one week• Email reminder mid-week
3. Post-study questionnaire• Message logs with questions• Experience with app• Uninstall and debrief
10
Data and Coding• 3,963 sent messages
• 959 butler messages (24.2%)
• 230 deceptive messages (5.8%)
• 89 butler lies (2.2%)
11
see#you#at#7:15#
I"did"not"like"her"shirt"
RQ1: Relationships
• F(4,560.7) = 31.48, p<.001
•More messages sent to romantic partners than all other categories (p<.001)
12
0"5"
10"15"20"25"30"35"
Acquaintance" Friend" Family" Roman8c" Other"
Percen
t'of'T
ext'M
essages'
Rela2onship'Types'
Mean'Number'of'Text'Messages'Sent'per'Recipient''
RQ1: Relationships & Lying
• F(4,566.3)=1.05, p=.380
•No significant differences in rates of lying by relationship type
13
0"
3"
6"
9"
12"
15"
Acquaintance" Friend" Family" Roman:c" Other"
Percen
t'of'T
ext'M
essages'
Rela2onship'Types'
Percent'Lies'per'Recipient''
RQ1: Relationships & Butler Lying
14
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
10"
Acquaintance" Friend" Family" Roman9c" Other"
Percen
t'of'T
ext'M
essages'
Rela2onship'Types'
Percent'Butler'Lies'per'Recipient''
• F(4,568.5)=1.44, p=.219
•No differences in butler lying rates by relationship type
RQ2: Time & Lying
15
RQ2: Time & Butler Lying
16
RQ3: Locations & Butler Lying
17
RQ3: Locations & Butler Lying
18
•χ2(1, N=3340) = 6.83, p<.01
• Locations shared with butler lies less frequently than with other messages
Summary of Results•More text messages sent to romantic partner
than other types of contacts
• Failed to find difference and lying and butler lying to different types of contacts
• Butler lies sent at times of social coordination
• Butler lies were sent without locations more often than other messages
19
Discussion•Context matters: people, place and time
•New technological features can impact behavior
•Need more detailed studies of text messaging
• Butler Messaging app
20
Limitations & Future Work• Self-reports of deception
• Potential self-selection bias
•Modified app included unfamiliar features
• Student sample
21
22
We thank Jon Culver, Daniel Haber, Jared Kass, Kate Pascucci, Weili Shi, Mark Thomas and Jin Zhao for their valuable research assistance. Funding
was partially provided by NSF Grants IIS-0915081 and DGE-0824162.
People, Place & TimeThe Daily Rhythms of Deception in Interpersonal Text Messaging
LindsayReynolds
JeremyBirnholtz
JeffHancock
MadelineSmith
socialmedia.northwestern.edu sml.comm.cornell.edu