1

This study was designed to test for a relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication. 24 subjects (12 male,

12 female) were paired into groups of two (one male, one female). Subjects were then prompted to answer a series

of 12 questions that were read aloud by the female practitioner. Questions varied in subject matter from mathematics

to current events. Among the 12 questions were 3 questions containing false information and 6 questions providing

further opportunities for subjects to fabricate knowledge. The results show the confirmation of the hypothesis and

clear significance in the relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication, as 21% of the time men spoke was

dedicated to knowledge fabrication while 7% of the time women spoke was dedicated to knowledge fabrication.

Additional results were calculated through various measures to find that women engage in more nonverbal cues than

men. Further additional results were calculated to find that a significant relationship is shown through descriptive

statistical data that men are more likely to have a higher self-esteem than women when it comes to knowledge,

whereas women are more likely to feel more pressure to be smarter than men when it comes to knowledge.

WHO LIES? : A STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND

KNOWLEDGE FABRICATION

Mark C. H. Byars and Emma M. Cox

Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania

Various primary, scholarly research studies, which will be indicated below, have

addressed possible relationships between gender and a number of components of lying and

dishonesty. However, much of it is limited, specific and difficult to locate. Lying is frequent,

unavoidable, and used in everyday life. In one-out-of-every-three interactions, college students

reported lying (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996). So, if lying is so frequent,

why is the research so limited? There are many aspects of lying that can be further studied and

addressed to enhance and broaden current research. In Lying in Everyday Life, a research study

addressing the many aspects of lying, it is brought to attention that many questions about lying,

or in this case knowledge fabrication, need to be addressed (DePaulo et al., 1996). The question

being asked in this study is—Is there a relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication,

which is tied closely to lying?

According to Dictionary.com, a lie is “a false statement made with the intent to deceive”

(Lie¹). According to the same source, fabrication is “something fabricated, especially an

untruthful statement” (Fabrication). In addition, and of significance, Thesaurus.com also lists

fabrication as a synonym for lie (Lie²). For the purposes of this study, knowledge fabrication is a

false statement with the intent to pass as the truth. Throughout this study, these terms will be

used interchangeably.

2

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Men and women are socialized differently from childhood. Boys are raised to think

about rules and individual rights, while girls focus more on relationships and compassion. “This

can lead boys to have more self-centered values, to believe that the ends can justify the means

and to, therefore, be predisposed to pursue competitive success more strongly than girls” (Hogue,

Levashina, & Hang, 2011, p. 401). Women are also more likely to disclose personal information

than men. From childhood, parents tend to discuss emotions with girls, not boys. At the same

time, boys may feel pressure from their parents and/or peers to “avoid emotional expression”

(Landoll, Schwartz-Mette, Rose, & Prinstein, 2011, p. 411). This could be a factor when an

individual presented with a question does not have an answer; men may do what they have to do

to cover up any vulnerability, while women may open up about the problems that they have with

the question

GENDER AND LYING

A limited number of studies show that men are more likely to lie than women. For

example, a study observed whether men or women would more readily “fake it” in a job

interview, meaning fabricate knowledge in order to appear more knowledgable. The researchers

created scales to measure extensive image creation, “the complete invention of an image of a

good job applicant,” image protection, “defending the image of a good job applicant,” slight

image creation, “enhancing personal qualities to present the image of a good job applicant,” and

ingratiation, “gaining favor with the interviewer to improve the appearance of being a good job

applicant” (Hogue, et al., 2011, p. 403). The researchers found that men use the most severe

form of lying, extensive image creation, more than women. This corresponds with the above

mentioned “self-centered values” of men (p. 401). Another study that shows that men are more

likely to deceive than women, had 128 college students (64.4% women, 34.6% men) take their

midterm exam. The students completed the exam and handed it in to be graded. While they

were actually graded and recorded, the students were told that they had to grade their own exams

in the interest of time. When the instructor was finished going through all of the correct answers

the students resubmitted the graded exams. Those grades were then compared to the original

grades that were previously recorded. Results found that 39.29% of men cheated and only 10%

of women cheated (Ward & Beck, 2001). Also, Robinson, Obler, Boone, Adamjee, and

Anderson (1998) found that society view men as less truthful than women, in a study that

included a series of listening to various statements by both men and women.

LIE DETECTION AND ACCEPTABILITY

Some studies go into detail about gender and lie detection and acceptability. Lie

acceptability is best described as the attitude a person has concerning the acceptance of deceit

(Oliveira & Levine, 2008). A previous study had 385 subjects view four different videotaped

3

scenarios that depicted simulated job interviews. This study’s purpose was to find a relationship

between gender and lie detection ability. Two interviews were made up of true information and

two included fabricated information. The participants were then asked to assess the honesty

levels of the interviewees, as well as address the communicator styles through a questionnaire.

The results showed that there are possible differences between genders, when differentiating

truth from lies. Women base honesty on attentiveness and men were more likely to base

dishonesty in males on attentiveness and honesty in women on friendliness (O’Hair, Cody, Goss,

& Krayer, 1988). An additional study that focused on gender and lie detection saw 46 subjects

(23 male, 23 female) rate how believable a male and a female speaker were. The subjects rated

the speakers on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = “definitely telling the truth,” 2 = “probably

telling the truth,” 3 = “the rater cannot be sure,” 4 = “probably lying,” and 5 = “definitely

lying”). The results showed that the male speaker was perceived as “less truthful” than the

female speaker (Robinson et al., 1998). This shows us that women are less likely to have their

lies detected than men. DePaulo, Stone and Lassiter (1985) performed a study in which they

focused on the differences in sincerity among lies in regards to different genders and how

genders detect a liar based on same-sex and opposite-sex pairings. The researchers tested to see

if men and women were more likely to notice a lie among the same or opposite genders, as well

as which gender gives off more easily detectable actions while lying. The subjects were 64 (32

male, 32 female) University of Virginia students. The study tested the subjects on how they

indicated a lie or the truth through genders, as they discuss four controversial topics, including

both facts and fictions on their feelings of the topic. The results of the study oppose other

research that we found, and previously indicated. It says that lies of women are more easily

detected than lies of men. The study also found that individuals are able to detect lies told by the

opposite sex, more easily than individuals of the same sex (DePaulo et al., 1985).

Along those same lines, a study went into further detail about which gender is more likely

to accept or deny lies. The subjects were given a scenario and four responses to that scenario.

One of the responses was a complete lie, another was a lie of omission, one equivocation and the

last option was the honest truth. The subjects responded to each of the options on a 7-point

Likert-type scale. Although the results of this study were inconclusive, the data show a slight

sway in the direction that men reported higher levels of lie acceptability (Oliveira & Levine,

2008).

LYING AND NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

There is variety of research going into detail about different nonverbal cues associated

with lying. A study suggests that the subject’s level of relaxation is a big indicator of whether or

not deception is being used. A high level of relaxation indicates honesty while nervous behavior

such as leg/foot movement indicates deceit (O’Hair et al., 1988). Eye contact and general

attentiveness are also important indicators of deception. “Communicators who are perceived as

attentive may imbue an impression of thoughtful receptivity, intuitively associated with

truthfulness,” (O’Hair et al., 1988, p.80). In the same vein, liars tend to avoid eye contact and

4

when they try to recite a prepared lie a conscious effort is made to maintain eye contact.

Research from the same study also shows that nervous laughter is more prominent in females

than males (Cody & O’Hair, 1983).

In this study we will test a two-tailed hypothesis: There is a relationship between gender

and knowledge fabrication. There is not enough conclusive evidence to say that men or women

will fabricate more knowledge, thus we made the decision to include a two-tailed hypothesis in

our study. This study is aimed to further research so that scholars and practitioners will have

enough evidence to further research on the matter, as well as supplying the general public with

more research-oriented information on the subject matter, which is part of everyday life.

METHOD

SUBJECTS

Twenty-four college students (12 male, 12 female), ranging from ages 18-24, participated

in this experiment and survey research. Subjects were randomized in a convenient sample in the

Bailey Library and the Smith Student Center (SSC) at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania.

DESIGN AND EXPERIMENTAL TASK

This study was a single factor (knowledge fabrication), two group (gender—male,

female) design.

The task, being a single-blind experimental study, consisted of having the subjects (in

groups of two—one male, one female) believe they were part of a study on the relationship

between gender and various areas of knowledge, rather than the relationship between gender and

knowledge fabrication. This belief was brought on by brief instructions (see PROCEDURE and

Appendix A) given by the practitioners. The reasoning behind the instructions, masking the true

reason of the study, was due to a previous study that shows that subjects give more legitimate

answers, allowing for more accurate data, if they do not feel as though they are being

manipulated (Fisher, 2013). Following the instructions, the subjects were verbally asked a twelve

question questionnaire (See Appendix A), constructed by the practitioners, made up of various

areas of knowledge, including sports, art, popular culture, science, mathematics, politics, and

common knowledge. Nine of the questions included factual content, some basic knowledge and

some harder, possibly less known content. Three of the questions included fictional content (i.e.

fictional names of individuals and content). The fiction-oriented questions, as well as the harder,

possibly less known questions, were designed in order to observe and indicate whether or not a

subject would fabricate an answer that they did not have a clear answer to.

After the initial questionnaire, subjects participated in survey research, where they were

asked to complete a written eleven question questionnaire (See Appendix B), constructed by the

5

practitioners, by writing their responses on a Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly

disagree,” in order to further research and possible findings concerning why the subjects

fabricated their knowledge. The questions ranged from confidence in their answers,

discouragement when they do not know the answers to questions, self-esteem when it comes to

knowledge and whether or not they feel pressure to be more knowledgeable than members of

their opposite gender.

DEPENDENT MEASURES

Knowledge fabrication was assessed and measured by the number of times a subject gave

an answer to the fiction-based questions, as well as when subjects answered factual questions

with false information (coded 1 = fabrication evident or 0 = no fabrication evident). Four

questions in the questionnaire were not used in the calculations of knowledge fabrication data, as

they were not clear, nor significant, detectors of knowledge fabrication, just simple errors (the

four discarded questions are addressed in bolded font, within Appendix A). The three fiction-

based questions included were: (1) “In honor of the recent passing of Eliza Ducane (fictional),

what qualities, if any, do you believe made her a successful actress?”; (2) “How do you think

possible Democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential election, Malcolm Foxberg (fictional),

will be able to help our nation?”; (3) “How does hybodroxyl (fiction) fertilization help the

growth of plants?”

Fiction-based questions (1) and (3) were designed to seem factual, as they are believable

information, as science and popular culture knowledge vary through an extensive amount of

topics. In designing fiction-based question (2), the construction and content were based on a

study concerning politics and young adults. Mueller and Reichert (2004) found that though

young adults were being targeted at a much larger rate (69%), through media outlets, such as

Rolling Stones (300%), their knowledge of the subject was not increasing. These findings

brought us to believe that young adults do not know much information concerning politics,

making it more likely that they would fabricate knowledge concerning a political figure, if they

are inclined, rather than skip it over or make a connection with previous and prior fiction-based

statements (1) and (2). All other questions ranged a variety of topics, as indicated above, and

fabrications of knowledge involved were dependent on the knowledge of the subject (See

Appendix A). The significance of difference (Chi Square alpha) for this result was .05.

ADDITIONAL DEPENDENT MEASURES

With regard to knowledge fabrication, additional significant dependent measures were

involved, including confidence, discouragement, self-esteem, and gender role pressure. All of the

following statements were voted on a 5-point Likert scale included on the eleven (four

significant to research, seven repetitive/filler) question post-experimental questionnaire (See

Appendix B). The subjects’ confidence in their answers was assessed through the statement:

“You feel confident in your answers to the previous questions.” (5 = strongly agree to 1 =

6

strongly disagree). The subjects’ level of discouragement when they do not know answers was

assessed through the statement: “You feel discouraged when you do not know the answers to

questions.” (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). The subjects’ level of self-esteem

pertaining to knowledge was assessed through the statement: “You have a high level of self-

esteem when it comes to knowledge.” (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). And lastly,

the subjects’ tendency to feel pressure in being more knowledgeable than members of the

opposite gender: “You feel pressure to be more knowledgeable than individuals that are of the

opposite gender of you.” (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). The significance of each

quality, in relationship to gender, was measured through descriptive statistics by finding the

mode of each gender in terms of each statement, as well as the sum of the scores each gender

scored on each of the four characteristics.

Previous research was the base of reasoning behind statements involving self-esteem and

gender roles. The calculations involved were put in place to back up the current research stating

that men have higher self-esteem than women (Witt & Wood., 2010), and that men are more

concerned with holding a higher standing of reputation (gender roles) than women (Hogue et al.,

2011). Based off of our own curiosity and similarities with prior research, we made the addition

of calculating the relationship, if any, between gender and confidence and discouragement, in

terms of knowledge, with gender.

Along with the data collected from the areas indicated above, during the time of verbal

questioning, the listening practitioner calculated the nonverbal communication behaviors of the

subjects during time of knowledge fabrication and uncertainty of content in an original three

categories, based on research involved with the relationship between gender and lying: eye-

contact, leg movement, and nervous laughter/smiling. An additional fourth category, agreement,

was added in during the time of the experiment, based on observation and a clear relationship

concerning gender. Each of these nonverbal traits were simply counted each time they occurred

in each gender (coded 1 = nonverbal cue displayed or coded 0 = no nonverbal cue displayed).

That data was then combined into one total score to represent each gender. The significance of

difference (Chi square alpha) for this result was .05.

The amount of time each gender talked was also calculated to detect which gender, if

any, spoke more often, as well as calculate how much of the percentage of time each gender

spoke was made up of knowledge fabrication. The data were collected by simply counting each

time a gender gave an answer to the verbal questionnaire (coded 1 = answer or coded 0 = no

answer). That data were then used to test the significance of difference. The significance of

difference (Chi square alpha) for this result was .05.

PROCEDURE

Subjects were randomly selected in a convenience sample at Bailey Library and SCC and

paired into groups of two (one male, one female). Before each session, subjects were given

instruction by the female practitioner that read: “We are conducting a study on the relationship

between gender and different areas of knowledge. Please answer the following twelve questions

7

to the best of your ability. Everyone has the chance to answer each question, though it is not

mandatory.” The instruction was included to make sure the subjects did not feel forced into

answering questions to which they did not have a clear answer. Prior research shows that male

voices are viewed to be less truthful and more easily detected in terms of dishonesty than female

voices (Robinson et al., 1998), so we chose to have the female practitioner ask the subjects

questions. This decreased the chance that participants would suspect that they were involved in

anything other than what was explained to them.

The subjects then went through the twelve question questionnaire (See Appendix A),

which were also asked verbally by the female practitioner, while the male practitioner observed

and recorded the subjects nonverbal cues. The subjects were given no help or further instruction

concerning the questions during the time of the experimentation by the practitioners, when

asked.

Following the verbal questionnaire, subjects were asked to fill out the eleven question

questionnaire (Appendix B) without discussing the content with one another.

Following the experiment and survey research, the subjects were then thanked and

debriefed. Oliveira and Levine (2008) indicated, through a study, that men are more likely to

accept lies than women. Due to this source, we were ready to dehoax subjects, if need be.

However, none of the subjects verbalized or showed signs of feeling deceived or manipulated.

RESULTS

RATE OF LYING

The rate of lying was observed and counted based on frequency of lies among each

gender (coded 1 = fabrication evident, or coded 0 = no fabrication evident). Knowledge

fabrication counted when a subject answered a fiction-based question or gave a false answer to a

question of significance. As indicated above and bolded in Appendix A, four items that lacked

significance and clear ability to fabricate knowledge, were discarded in the counting of possible

times a subject was able to lie. That broke the results down to be based on calculations that each

gender had the possibility to lie a total of 96 times. Out of those 96 possible times, results

showed that men fabricated knowledge a total of 22 times throughout the experiment, where

women fabricated knowledge a total of 7 times throughout the experiment.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

The gender of the subject was the independent variable in this study. Gender is defined

by the practitioners as the subjects’ identified gender (male, female).

8

TEST OF HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis stated that there is a relationship between gender and knowledge

fabrication. In order to test the hypothesis, the frequencies of lying (men=22, women=7) were

then calculated into a Chi Square test, as shown in Table 1. The total number of lies made

throughout the study by both men and women (29), went into testing the significance of the

relationship at a significance level of .05. The test tested a hypothesis of a 1:1 ratio of

relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication, in order to see if an even relationship

was shown. If there was a failure to confirm a significant equal relationship of the topics, we

would be able to confirm our hypothesis that there is a relationship between gender and

knowledge fabrication. After finding ᵡ² (7.76), the result was then compared to the Chi Square

alpha (critical value) 3.841. The critical value was found through the significance value (.05) and

the degrees of freedom ((n-1) = (2-1) = 1). With ᵡ² (7.76) exceeding the critical value (3.841), the

hypothesis of the study was confirmed. A full layout of the calculations can be found in Table 1.

ADDITIONAL RESULTS

Throughout our research, various findings were mentioned concerning the reasons people

lie, based on gender, and nonverbal cues of lying/uncertainty based on gender. We found this

information significant enough to test throughout our study, to further knowledge of the topic, as

well as giving various reasoning and signs behind of our dependent variable. We went through a

variety of measures in calculating this data, as well.

The first additional test we performed concerned the relationship between gender and the

frequency of speech. This study was conducted not only to test a relationship, but to allow for the

percentages of lying in regards to frequency of speech among each gender. The significance of

the relationship was tested in a Chi Square test (Table 2). The frequency of speech among each

gender was calculated throughout the time of experimentation (coded 1 = answer, or coded 0 =

no answer). Those numbers (men=105, women=87), were then tested on a 1:1 ratio relationship

between gender and frequency of speech. After finding ᵡ² (1.68), the result was then compared to

the Chi Square alpha (critical value) 3.841. The critical value was found through the significance

value (.05) and the degrees of freedom ((n-1) = (2-1) = 1). With the critical value (3.841)

exceeding ᵡ² (1.68), a hypothesis of 1:1 ratio was confirmed, showing no true significant

relationship between gender and frequency of speech. A full layout of calculations can be found

in Table 2.

A third Chi Square test was performed to test the significance of the relationship between

gender and nonverbal cues of knowledge fabrication/lying and/or uncertainty. The nonverbal

cues were measured through frequency of occurrence (coded 1 = nonverbal cue evident, or coded

0 = no nonverbal cue evident evident) on four aspects: loss of eye contact, leg movement,

nervous laughter/smiling, and agreement. The scores of each, indicated in Table 3, were then

added together to represent two scores (men=26, women=60). Those numbers, were then tested

on a 1:1 ratio relationship between gender and nonverbal cues of knowledge fabrication/lying

9

and/or uncertainty in a Chi Square test (Table 4). After finding ᵡ² (13.44), the result was then

compared to the Chi Square alpha (critical value) 3.841. The critical value was found through the

significance value (.05) and the degrees of freedom ((n-1) = (2-1) = 1). With ᵡ² (1.68) exceeding

the critical value (3.841), a hypothesis of 1:1 ratio was rejected, confirming a large significant

relationship between gender and nonverbal cues of knowledge fabrication/lying and/or

uncertainty. A full layout of calculations can be found in Table 4.

Lastly, components in the reasoning people lie were tested. Measurements of the

components, confidence in answers, discouragement when not knowing an answer, self-esteem

in terms of knowledge, and pressure to be more knowledgeable than members of the opposite

gender, were obtained through a post-experimental questionnaire (See Appendix B). The

characteristics were measured on a Likert Scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree).

Those numbers were then summed (Table 5), indicating an overall value of the characteristic of

each gender. The mode of agreement upon each gender in terms of each characteristic was also

calculated (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree) to show further support. In this section,

confidence (men=50, women=50) and discouragement (men=46, women=46) had the same sums

for each gender, and slightly different modes, showing no trace of a significant relationship.

However, self-esteem showed an overall sum (men=50, women=36) and a mode (men=no mode

but the majority of answers fell within the “agree” and “strongly agree” rankings, women=2)

significance in terms of the relationship between gender and the level of self-esteem when it

comes to knowledge. The overall sum (men=22, women=49) and mode (men=no mode but the

majority of answers fell within the “disagree” and “strongly disagree” rankings, women=3) of

the pressure on gender roles shows significance in terms of the relationship between gender and

the pressure to be smarter than members of the opposite gender. No male subject indicated that

they “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement: “You feel pressure to be more knowledgeable

than individuals that are of the opposite gender of you.” A full listing of the characteristic data

can be seen in Table 5.

Table 1: The Significance of Difference Concerning the Relationship Between Gender and

Knowledge Fabrication (Chi Square Test)

H0: There is a 1:1 ratio relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication.

O E O - E (O - E)² (O - E)² / E

Men 22 14.5 7.5 56.25 3.88

Women 7 14.5 -7.5 56.25 3.88

Total: 29 29 ᵡ² = 7.76

Degrees of Freedom = (n-1) = (2-1) = 1

Critical Value = 3.841

Significance Value = 0.05

10

Table 2: The Significance of Difference Concerning the Relationship Between Gender and Quantity

of Speech (Chi Square Test)

H0: There is a 1:1 ratio relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication.

O E O - E (O - E)² (O - E)² / E

Men 105 96 9 81 .84

Women 87 96 -9 81 .84

Total: 192 192 ᵡ² = 1.68

Degrees of Freedom = (n-1) = (2-1) = 1

Critical Value = 3.841 Significance Value = 0.05

Table 3: Descriptive Statistical Data on the Relationship Between Gender and Nonverbal

Cues of Knowledge Fabrication/Lying and/or Uncertainty

Dependent Independent Sum of

Occurrence Variable Variable Among All

Subject

Nervous Laughter Male 15 Female 22 Loss of Eye Contact Male 10 Female 21 Leg Movement Male 1 Female 11 Agreement Male 0 Female 6

Gender Total: Male 26 Female 60

Overall Total: 86

11

Table 4: The Significance of Difference Concerning the Relationship Between Gender and

Nonverbal Cues of Knowledge Fabrication/Lying and/or Uncertainty

H0: There is a 1:1 ratio relationship between gender and nonverbal cues of lying and uncertainty.

O E O - E (O - E)² (O - E)² / E

Men 26 43 -17 289 6.72

Women 60 43 17 289 6.72

Total: 86 86 ᵡ² = 13.44

Degrees of Freedom = (n-1) = (2-1) = 1

Critical Value = 3.841 Significance Value = 0.05

Table 5: Descriptive Statistical Data on the Relationship Between Gender and Reasoning For

Lying/Knowledge Fabrication

12

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION AND EXPLANATION OF RESULTS

The relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication was examined through

experimental research, and furthered with additional findings through experimental and survey

research, on a series of questionnaires and observations. We proposed a two-tailed hypothesis:

There is a relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication. Through a Chi Square test,

we were able to confirm our hypothesis. The critical value (3.841) was less than the ᵡ² (7.78), as

indicated in Table 1. That means that we were able to reject the null hypothesis that there is no

relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication, as well as that relationship being equal,

in return confirming our hypothesis. The findings show that there is a clear relationship that men

fabricate knowledge more than women.

Through frequency results, the number of times each genders talked in the study were

calculated (men=105, women=87). From that information, we were able to calculate the

percentage of times each gender lied (men=22, women=7), with regard to the number of times

they spoke. These numbers brought us to the findings that 21% of the time men spoke was

dedicated to lying (22/105), whereas 8% of the time women spoke was dedicated to lying (7/87).

With regard to gender and frequency of speech, additional results, shown in Table 2,

show that there is no significance in the relationship between the two areas. Through a Chi

Square test (Table 2), designed much like the one indicated above, a hypothesis that there is a 1:1

ratio relationship between men and women was confirmed, as the critical value (3.841) exceeded

the chi square value (1.68), showing support for no significant relationship between gender and

frequency of speech. The significance was based on a .05 significance value. However, there

were slight difference shown, as men spoke 55% of the time (105/192), whereas women spoke

45% of the time (87/192). This is further addressed in SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH, below.

Nonverbal cues, with regard to knowledge fabrication and/or uncertainty, are also

addressed and measured (see Tables 3), showing that women give off a significant amount (See

Table 4) more nonverbal cues (loss of eye contact, leg movement, nervous laughter/smiling, and

agreement) than men. Within the Chi Square test, the chi square value (13.44) exceeded the

critical value (3.841), supporting research that there is a relationship between gender and

nonverbal cues of lying. The significance was based on a .05 significance level. In regards to the

total number of nonverbal cues throughout the whole study (men (26) + women (60) = 86),

women gave off 70% of nonverbal cues (60/86), whereas men gave off 30% of nonverbal cues

(26/86).

Lastly, results of the relationship between gender and characteristics of knowledge show

possible support for the research (See Table 5). No significant difference was found concerning

the relationship between gender and confidence or discouragement concerning knowledge, as

both genders had similar responses. However, a seemingly significant relationship is shown

13

through descriptive statistical data, concerning gender and high self-esteem in terms of

knowledge, as well as pressure to be more knowledgeable than members of the opposite gender.

In terms of simple calculations, as well as central tendencies (mode), it is shown that men are

more likely to have a higher self-esteem than women when it comes to knowledge, whereas

women are more likely to feel more pressure to be smarter than men when it comes to

knowledge.

Through the results found in the testing and confirming of our hypothesis (there is a

relationship between gender and knowledge fabrication), as well as additional research and

results, our study adds a variety of primary research, along with extensions and support of

scholarly, primary research studies, to the study of gender and lying, or in this case, knowledge

fabrication. There are also areas involved that did not show a clear significant relationship, such

as gender and frequency of speech, as well as characteristics and feelings concerning lying,

which could be addressed and extended upon in further studies. The overall relationship between

gender and lying/knowledge fabrication has been confirmed and supported through this study, as

well as various other aspects that tie into the topic, such as nonverbal characteristics and

reasoning behind and feelings toward knowledge and lying, in general.

LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH

With all research come limitations. There are a variety of different factors that could

have affected the results of the study. One of those factors is the insinuation that lying and

knowledge fabrication are synonymous. There was no way for us to tell with full certainty if

someone was fabricating knowledge with the intent to deceive. Though the definitions are

closely related, they are not the same. For our intents and purposes the terms could be used

interchangeably, but without asking the subjects if they fabricated knowledge on purpose, there

is no clear way to know.

Another limitation is the fact that we had a small sample size. 24 college students

collected in a randomized convenience sample, around the same age, is not a sizeable

representation of the parameter of the population in terms of gender. However, the subjects were

made of up various ethnicities, backgrounds, and characteristics, showing some level of

variation.

Another limitation is that the subjects were paired into groups of two, consisting of one

male and one female. Research suggests that an individual will disclose more when they are

paired with a person of the same gender (DePaulo et al., 1996). If we had same-gender pairs it

would be more likely that the subjects would express if they didn’t know an answer, changing

the results of the study.

A substantial limitation to this study is the fact that neither practitioner involved is trained

in more than the basic measure of detecting nonverbal communication. Background research

was conducted, but that is no substitute for proper training. Some nonverbal cues could have

been misinterpreted, making the information involved irrelevant to the study.

14

A limitation that was apparent from the beginning of this research process was a lack of

pertinent primary scholarly research. The final limitation that will be discussed is the presence of

outside variables, such as the various levels of concentration subjects possessed, pressure felt by

subjects to answer questions (regardless of where that pressure came from), and nervousness of

the subjects, along with other aspects that may have varied from person-to-person.

In further research of the topic, these limitations could be taken into account and

modified to make the areas of this study more reliable, significant and representative.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Researchers could move forward by asking, why do men fabricate knowledge more than

women? This could be done by leading men to answer questions using false knowledge followed

by asking them why they gave the answer that they did. Do they do it to save their image? Do

they do it because it’s easier than searching for the real answers to questions? These questions

should be addressed in a controlled environment with a large sample of men. There should be a

male practitioner present to ask the questions because as we’ve seen, individuals are more open

with individuals of the same gender (DePaulo et al., 1996). This sort of study would benefit

researchers by expanding the vast wealth of research there is on various gender differences. This

example would be a more in-depth look into the thought processes of men, in regards to

lying/knowledge fabrication.

This study could also help researchers focused on the effects of a child’s upbringing look

for things that potentially influence that part of their development. If they get close to the exact

practices or occurrences that assign the male gender roles they could figure out ways to decrease

these influences or shape them to create something more positive.

Due to the limited amount of training in analyzing nonverbal cues, further research could

be done. These experiments should include a videotaped question and answer session with the

same kind of questionnaires that were designed in this study. This way, experts can go over the

results as many times as they need, so they are able report more concrete, accurate data. This

could help people in management positions when they are looking to hire. It could provide them

with details to look for in their interviewees in order to see if they really know what you are

asking them or if they’re making it up. This would lead to hiring more legitimately qualified

employees which would obviously be beneficial to their business.

We did not find a significant difference between gender and the number of times

individuals spoke. Researchers could once again assemble a larger, more controlled sample of

men and women with the sole purpose of recording the frequency at which people spoke with

regard to gender. The results from that type of study would aid in understanding gender

differences concerning speech dominance and level of comfort either gender has with speaking

to individuals of the same and opposite gender.

Further research should be extended to different medias and enhance the validity of this

study; would a person be more likely to fabricate knowledge orally or in a written environment?

This could be tested by having a two-part questionnaire, half oral and half written questions. This

15

would open a whole new set of nonverbal cues with which the practitioner would need to be

familiar (such as time taken writing responses, length of responses, etc.). This would help in

finding the most effective ways to avoid knowledge fabrication in classroom settings, job

interviews or any other scenario in which knowledge fabrication could be evident.

Would a person be more likely to fabricate knowledge in low-stakes or high-stakes

situations? Research shows that “men are more likely than women to make up untrue

information during an upcoming job interview” (Hogue et al., 2011). The very same study goes

on to say that people who use one of the most severe forms of lying, extensive image creation,

will move further in the hiring process than those who had a genuinely bad outcome. What does

this mean? It means that when the stakes are high, like when a job is on the line, people tend to

fabricate quite a bit, and why shouldn’t they if research shows that they’ll get ahead? But what

would happen if the stakes were low, or there were no stakes? Would those same people who

employed extensive image creation be as likely to fabricate knowledge in our study? This all

could be tested in a job interview setting in which normal, high-stakes questions would be asked.

Either before or after that interview, a confederate (such as a secretary or other building

employee) could ask a series of low-stakes questions without any interview-related material.

These two data sets would then be compared side-by-side to determine where they’d be more

likely to fabricate knowledge or if they’d fabricate in both situations.

16

APPENDIX A

The following is a list of questions that will be verbally asked to the

subjects by the investigators:

Verbal instructions prior to questions: We are conducting a study on the

relationship between gender and different areas of knowledge. Please answer

the following 12 questions to the best of your ability. Everyone has the

chance to answer each question, though it is not mandatory.

1. Off the top of your head, what is 8 X 9?

2. What do you think is the main reason Tom Wolf won the Pennsylvania

Governor’s Election over Tom Corbett?

3. What is gluten?

4. In honor of the recent passing of Eliza Ducane, what qualities, if any, do

you believe made her a successful actress?

5. Which of Shakespeare’s plays is your favorite and why?

6. Is Coach Mike Tomlin a better coach than Bill Cowher to the Pittsburgh

Steelers? Why or Why not?

7. What’s your best explanation as to why Pluto is no longer a planet?

8. What day of the year does the United States of America celebrate

Valentine’s Day?

9. How do you think possible Democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential

election, Malcolm Foxberg, will be able to help our nation?

10. Do you believe Taylor Swift is a good role model for young girls? Why or why not?

11. How does hybodroxyl fertilization help the growth of plants?

12. In your opinion, what are the advantages or disadvantages of Obamacare?

17

APPENDIX B

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND DIFFERENT AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE: FOLLOW-UP

QUESTIONNAIRE

Gender: Age:

Instructions: Please mark an (X) in the circle, where it best applies to you,

following each statement.

1. You feel confident in your answers to the previous questions.

2. You feel you gave your answer in a timely manner.

3. You feel that you are knowledgeable in a variety of topics.

18

4. You feel discouraged when you do not know the answers to questions.

5. You found the questions asked easy to answer.

6. You feel pressure to know the answer to questions, even outside of this

study, when asked.

7. You have a high level of self-esteem when it comes to knowledge.

8. You fabricate your knowledge to seem smarter, at times.

19

9. You believe that it is okay to lie in certain situations.

10. You were completely truthful when answering the questions given prior to this survey.

11. You feel pressure to be more knowledgeable than individuals that are of the opposite gender of you.

20

REFERENCES

Cody, M. J., & O'Hair, H. D. (1983). NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION AND DECEPTION:DIFFERENCES IN

DECEPTION CUES DUE TO GENDER AND COMMUNICATOR DOMINANCE. Communication

Monographs,50(3), 175-192. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life.

Journal

Of Personality And Social Psychology, 70(5), 979-995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979 DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Telling ingratiating lies: Effects of target sex and target

attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 48(5), 1191-1203. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1191

Fabrication [Def 2]. In Dictionary.com. Retrieved December 3, 2014,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fabrication?s=t. Fisher, T. (2013). Gender Roles and Pressure to be Truthful: The Bogus Pipeline Modifies Gender Differences in

Sexual but Not Non-sexual Behavior. Sex Roles, 401-414. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from EbscoHost.

Hogue, M., Levashina, J., & Hang, H. (2011). Will I Fake It? The Interplay of Gender, Machiavellianism, and Self-monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews. Journal of Business Ethics, 399-411. Retrieved

November 18, 2014, from EbscoHost. Mueller, J. E., & Reichert, T. (2009). MORE ENGAGED BUT STILL UNINFORMED? 2004 PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTION COVERAGE IN CONSUMER MAGAZINES POPULAR WITH YOUNG ADULTS. Journalism

& Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(3), 563-577.

Lie¹ [Def 1]. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved December 3, 2014, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t.

Lie². In Thesaurus.com. Retrieved December 3, 2014, http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/lie?s=t. Landoll, R., Schwartz-Mette, R., Rose, A., & Prinstein, M. (2011). Girls' and Boys' Disclosure about Problems as a

Predictor of Changes in Depressive Symptoms Over Time. Sex Roles, (65), 410-420. Retrieved November 17,

2014, from EbscoHost. O'Hair, D., Cody, M. J., Goss, B., & Krayer, K. J. (1988). The Effect of Gender, Deceit Orientation and

Communicator Style on Macro-Assessments of Honesty. Communication Quarterly, 36(2), 77-93.

Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, T. R. (2008). Lie Acceptability: A Construct and Measure. Communication Research

Reports, 25(4), 282-288. doi:10.1080/08824090802440170 Robinson, K. A., Obler, L. K., Boone, R. T., Adamjee, R., & Anderson, J. (1998). Gender and Truthfulness in Daily

Life Situations. Sex Roles, 38(9/10), 821-831.

Ward, D., & Beck, W. (2001). Gender and Dishonesty. The Journal of Social Psychology, 333-339. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from EbscoHost.

Witt, Melissa, and Wendy Wood. 2010. "Self-regulation of Gendered Behavior in Everyday Life." Sex Roles 62, no. 9/10: 635-646.SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed November 11, 2014).