A study was conducted to test the empirical merit of R. M. Chisholm's and T. D. Feehan's proposed typology of deception: (1) commission versus omission (lies of commission are those where the liar contributes causally to the receiver's believing the lie, perhaps by telling the falsehood; lies of omission would occur if the liar could have prevented the receiver from believing the falsity, but chose not to do so); (2) positive or negative (a positive lie occurs when the liar causes the receiver to add a false belief to his or her inventory; a negative lie results in the receiver losing a true belief); and (3) simpliciter versus secundum quid (deception simpliciter occurs when the liar converts the receiver from a state of not being deceived to the state of false belief; secundum quid takes place when the receiver already believes falsely and may spontaneously correct him or herself if left alone, but the liar acts to maintain the falsehood). Subjects included 202 undergraduate students who were told that the study concerned reactions to a written conversation--the topic of deception was never mentioned. Each student read one of nine possible conversations, each of which concerned the same situation. Afterwards, each student filled out a solidarity and trust scale. Results supported the existence of a positive (add a false belief) versus negative (take away a true belief) dimension, as well as a commission (tell a direct lie) versus omission (fail to correct a falsity) factor. Data did not support the simpliciter versus secundum quid as an important factor. (HOD)