An interesting result of the validation of the hypothesis

According to our research all kinds of manipulation of information were rated as more deceptive than a truthful message. This fully corresponds with the theoretical and empirical model of IMT Makkormaka. The result shows that in the context of Russian firms implemented individualistic tendency of interaction, which manifests itself in a specific, direct communications, and do not approve of indirection in business communication.

Interestingly, the deception and the breach of manners, the study participants were rated as less misleading than a lie and a violation of propriety. Previously described Signs that business partners in a small business is extremely prone to half-truths and various secrets (Marks, 1994). Such specificity of business communication in Russia has been particularly relevant in unstable for the economy of the 90's and, apparently, remains and now. Not to say the truth, in the opinion of the Russian people, does not mean to lie. This clearly shows the explanations that were given by the participants of our research in evaluating deception. Often they explained the hype as:: "really", "still true," "True, but ..." the Participants tend to pay attention to what is in the message, but what it lacks is not paying enough attention.

As stated above inappropriate message was perceived as significantly less truthful than the hype. Assessing the violation of the relevance of the participants explained their choice in roughly the same way: "Clearly not entitled" "avoiding the Nonsense the left is" "Evasive, then something is fishy and therefore lies". In General, for recipients omission of critical information, the omission of reasons is even less misleading than information that in principle may be very true, but not relevant. The appropriateness of the violation notice easily and because it raise doubts and mental anguish, "what shadows?".

Sensing message with the violation of manners, recipients evaluated them as less misleading. The reasons for this may lie in that ambiguous to support non-verbal message is interpreted as frivolous and as such it is the attitude of more loyal than to lie and relevance. It should be said that the breach of manners is the most difficult to read, and when analyzing the results we can see that some of the recipients have valued this type of violation as highly misleading. Perhaps, in the perception of violation manners as anywhere else requires high social and emotional intelligence.

Another possible explanation is based on the phenomenon of "lies". Lies, as noted by Signs typical of Russian self-consciousness socio-psychological phenomenon (Marks, 1999). Lies, it is intended that he will eat, however, a liar may try to reduce the seriousness of the situation, and if you happen to avoid the deserved punishment. If a lie is also common and accepted in business communication, this phenomenon can act as a particular style of communication in Russia, like "nunchi" in South Korea and "mianzi" in China. Building on this idea we can assume that individualistic trend of the Russian society smooths out this special style, not allowing him to be generally applicable, however this does not mean that it is not.

An interesting result of the validation of the third hypothesis. Deception from the mouth of the head appreciated by the participants of the study as more than misleading than cheating in a situation of business communication peer employees of the company. Perhaps the fact that the head of more opportunities and responsibilities, and because of his deception forms the greater seriousness of its communication, where deception is not appropriate and therefore is assessed as less than truthful. If in the normal situation ("employee-employee") on the evaluation affected by the fact that the employee still told the truth (albeit not all), "supervisor-employee" decisive importance takes that missed the head, as his position imposes on his words a special significance. Based on this reasoning, we can assume that the higher the seriousness of the situation, the more misleading will be perceived deception.

Summarizing the above, we can derive an interesting result. The results of this study partly correlate with all the previous studies and on a sample of Western culture (Lapinski, Levine, 2000) and on a sample of Eastern culture (Yeung, Levine, and Nishiyama, 1999; Park, Ahn, 2007; Murai, 1998). Indeed all the methods of delusion are characterized as less than truthful, however, you can say that there are two groups of methods differ in the degree of veracity. The first group includes the most deceptive methods: false and inappropriate information, the second the group means of perceived (but not reduced) more close to the truth: deceit and breach of manners. This combination of the early obtained results may reflect a cultural feature of Russian people involved in business communication.