Are Lying Related to Technology and Social Media?

I think there’s always been times when we’ve all slipped out of a date we didn’t want to go on with a harmless white lie, or when on social media platforms it seemed like someone we weren’t, physical or personal. Well, technology that offers a thousand and one ways for us to communicate is also makes it easier for us to lie Could it also be preparing the ground?

Peoples The connection between their deception and technologyOur ways of communicating have changed drastically since the study that first investigated the issue in 2004 – for example, most of us now prefer to text through different media platforms rather than speak out loud on the phone. But that is not the only thing that has changed. Come on, the relationship between lying and technology, since 2004 study how much has changed Let’s see together.

What were the results like 20 years ago?

Jeff Hancock and his colleagues, who conducted research on communication in 2004; Social interactions of 28 students through face-to-face communication, telephone, messaging and e-mail for a week how many times you lie in each interaction kept his report. Obtained results; most of your lies social interactions At the time, the least lie was told via e-mail.

The findings that emerged during the study, Hancock’s “feature-based model” It was also compatible with the system he called This system; regardless of whether people can communicate seamlessly, whether messages are short or whether people are far away. where do not lie could predict the trend.

In Hancock’s study, the highest number of lies per social interaction is the technology tool that incorporates all these features. on the phone; at least where people cannot communicate simultaneously and messages are recorded in the e-mail turned out to happen.

So how have the results changed nearly 20 years from now?

250 people in total and conducted face-to-face, including communication via social media, phone, messaging, video chat, and e-mail. a recent studyIn addition, social interactions and lies told by people over seven days were recorded, as Hancock did. Just as in the study in 2004, the participants in the study mostly told lies that they were far from each other, simultaneous and unrecorded. phone and video chat said during The fewest lies were told via e-mail; but oddly enough, the difference between the number of lies per mode of communication the differences were quite small.

There are several possible explanations for these results; But why are the studies different media environments have different lying rates. For now, it is insufficient to fully explain why. It is possible that some media make it easier to lie than others. Some media, such as the phone and video chat, can help if we’re caught lying. milder reaction from the other side may cause it. Cheating rates may also differ by technology, as people use certain forms of technology for certain social relationships. For example, while e-mail is generally used for professional environments; video chat is mostly used for more personal purposes. This work will be The two most important takeaways is this:

First, overall media lying rates minor differences exists. The main thing is; rather than someone lying via e-mail or phone, a tendency to lie. Second, the overall lying rate low looks like. Most people are honest, which is consistent with truth-default theory, which suggests that most people are honest and that there are only a few productive liars.

Since 2004, social media has become the primary place we use to interact with other people. However, there is evidence that communicating online or through technology leads to lower social interactions in quantity and quality. widespread misperception continues. People often believe that honesty is harder to achieve because we use technology to interact, a perception that not only misleads us but is also not supported by empirical evidence. If we come to the conclusion; The belief that lying is more common than before in this digital age we live in is based on the data obtained. does not match.