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