1. Shady Sunglasses: Eyewear and Perceptions of Honesty
Abigail Gorbett
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Darrin J. Griffin
College of Communication and Information Sciences, The University of Alabama
OBJECTIVES
METHODS
ANALYSIS
Determine how sunglasses affects the judgement of honesty and fairness in a negotiation context
Determine how sunglasses affects self-perception of dishonesty and fairness
Examine whether perceived deception affects the outcome of a negotiation
Participants rate the value of items (e.g., swag) on a scale of 1-10 (for value).
Negotiate over items.
Randomly assign participants to wear sunglasses.
One by one, participants alternate picking which items they want.
Allow participants one last chance to negotiate at the end of selection (swap items).
After completion of the negotiation, participants take surveys rating honesty and fairness of the other participant as well as a self-evaluation.
Compute scores for trustworthy and fairness.
Compares scores on those assessments between those who wore sunglasses and those that didn’t, separated by gender. Because the participants rated the perceived values of the items, we will see if there was a significant difference in the end value of the items that each person chose. Analysis of the number of successful trades may also give an insight into how sunglasses affect a negotiation.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
There is research that has found that darkness, including tinted sun glasses, can induce devious behavior in subjects (Zhong et al., 2010). Other research has found that counterfeit merchandise can instigate peoples' behaviors in negative and dishonest ways - that is, they are wearing something deceptive so they might behave deceptive in other manners (Gino et al., 2010). We also know that sunglasses can influence bartering behavior (which often includes deception and lying; e.g., Hendrey & Watson, 2001). Yoshida and Iada (1981) discovered that sunglasses can influence eye contact behavior in interacting dyads.
DESIGN
Example Assessment Scores
REFERENCES
Deception Score
Deception
Self Rating
Fairness Score
Fairness
Interaction 1
Control
P1: No sunglasses
P2: No sunglasses
Person 1 2 3 4
Person 2
Interaction 2
Experimental
P2: Sunglasses 5 6
Interaction 3
P1: Sunglasses 7
Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self the deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological science.
Hendry, Joy, and Conrad William Watson. An anthropology of indirect communication. No. 37. Psychology Press, 2001.
Yoshida, F., & Iida, T. (1981). An analysis of visual behavior in conversational dyads. The Japanase Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20(2),
Zhong, C. B., Bohns, V. K., & Gino, F. (2010). Good lamps are the best police: Darkness increases dishonesty and self-interested behavior. Psychological science, 21(3),
INTRODUCTION
Scores are on a scale of A score of 1 shows that a person was perceived to be very honest and fair; while a score of 10 shows that person was perceived as very deceptive and unfair.
From an interpersonal interaction perspective it is unknown what influence sunglasses might play in deception and counter deception. This research in progress is guided by the following research question: How do sunglasses affect the perception of veracity in interpersonal interactions? Because sunglasses might make people seem less credible in some situations this project will explore the influence that sunglasses have on interpersonal interactions and whether or not shaded glasses might be related with deceptive communication. The proposed experimental design involves a negotiation context whereby participants will encounter a manipulation that will allow an examination of the impact eyewear can have on judgments of veracity.
Example Values of Items
Type of Item; rated 1-10
Cups
Pens
Sunglasses
Flash Drive
Mousepad
Person 1 4 2 9 7 6
Person 2 1 8 …
Person 59 5
Person 60
Mean
1.25
6.25
6.75