<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Background:</b> Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is an important part of work life. However, this communication can be dishonest, and when people attempt to judge dishonesty, irrespective of the cues available, they tend to rely on a few nonverbal cues that are not the most reliable. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Literature review:</b> According to leakage theory, CMC modes differ from each other in the number of cues to deception they can transmit, potentially affecting one's ability to detect deception in a given medium. There is considerable research on peoples’ use of nonverbal cues across CMC modes to evaluate deception, but limited understanding of the choices they make and the extent to which their deception judgments are impaired or helped by cues they have access to for different CMC modes. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research questions:</b> 1. To what extent are the nonverbal cues that people say they rely on to detect deception shaped by the medium that they use for communication? 2. What are the effects of nonverbal cue availability on deception detection success? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Methodology:</b> We conducted an experiment with 132 veracity judges from New Zealand and Jamaica, who observed interview segments in Spanish and Hindi (languages that they did not understand) to isolate the effects of nonverbal cues. They determined the veracity of each segment and listed the things that guided their judgment. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results/discussion:</b> The results suggest that when certain nonverbal cues are available, such as gaze aversion, these suppress attention to more reliable cues (e.g., voice pitch) when judging deception. Redirecting attention to more reliable cues is therefore important. Unexpectedly, cue choice also varied across language by medium. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusions:</b> The findings extend the understanding of people's use of nonverbal cues and the extent to which certain cues distract in the deception judgment. Although people rely on vocalic cues in audio-only media and kinesic cues in video-only media, they tend to rely mostly on, and are distracted by, a few kinesic cues for full audiovisual media, even though vocalic cues are available. We also found that people can successfully detect cues to deception, even when their communication mode is relatively bereft of useful information. However, the availability (or lack) of nonverbal cues was not a factor in deception detection success. To improve detection, deception training that targets reliable cues for different media is needed.

Research problem: Due to globalization and the increased availability of online collaboration tools, individuals are now likely to work together in settings where computers are their primary mode of communication. However, because communication characteristics are different in virtual team settings, especially when they are text based, communication problems, such as deception, arise. Recent research found that deceptive individuals in virtual teams can have a negative impact on group task performance, and it recognized that in addition to the communication medium, task and group characteristics, such as task complexity and group member experience, are important influences in these settings. However, the impacts of these additional influences have not been empirically examined. Research question: Does group members' experience with each other and task complexity affect their deception detection accuracy and task performance in a computer-mediated communication setting? Literature review: Previous literature has shown that deceivers are an important influence on computer-mediated groups. However, few studies have compared different group settings, and no studies have empirically tested the impact that task and group characteristics, such as task complexity and group member experience, have on these types of groups. Methodology: An experiment was designed to test the effect of group member experience and task complexity on computer-mediated groups facing deception. Two-hundred fifty-six undergraduates (256) were selected for the experiment. Results and conclusions: Quantitative analysis, which included multivariate analysis of variance, revealed that (a) groups performing a low-complexity task were better at detecting deception than were groups performing a high-complexity task, (b) groups with members who had experience with each other had higher task performance than did inexperienced groups, and (c) experienced groups did not have higher accuracy in detecting deception than did inexperienced groups. These results highlight the importance of understanding the different affects that task complexity and group member experience have on virtual teams facing deception, and they provide insight into what practices can help minimize the impact of interactive computer-mediated deception.