Language dominance in interpersonal deception in computer-mediated communication

Dominance is not only a complicated social phenomenon that involves interpersonal dynamics, but also an effective strategy used in various applications such as deception detection, negotiation, and online community. The extensive literature on dominance has primarily focused on the personality traits and socio-biological influence, as well as various nonverbal and paralinguistic behaviors associated with dominance. Nonetheless, language dominance manifested through dynamically acquired linguistic capability and strategies has not been fully investigated. The exploration of language dominance in the context of deception is even rarer. With the increasing use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in all aspects of modern life, language dominance in CMC has emerged as an important issue. This study examines language dominance in the context of deception via CMC. The experimental results show that deceivers: (1) demonstrate a different trend of language dominance from truthtellers over time; (2) manipulate the level of language dominance by initiating communication with low dominance and gradually increasing the level over the course of interaction, and (3) display higher levels of dominance in terms of some linguistic behaviors than truthtellers. They suggest that in CMC, deceivers not only adjust the level of language dominance more frequently, but also change it more remarkably than truthtellers.

[1]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal deception: V. Accuracy in deception detection , 1994 .

[2]  Richard A. Johnson,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis , 1983 .

[3]  Hans Kruuk,et al.  Non-verbal Communication , 1973 .

[4]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Relational Messages Associated with Nonverbal Behaviors. , 1984 .

[5]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Cues to deception. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  R. Lakoff.  Language and woman's place , 1973, Language in Society.

[7]  J. Dovidio,et al.  Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal Behavior , 1985 .

[8]  D. Braginsky.  Machiavellianism and manipulative interpersonal behavior in children , 1970 .

[9]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Adaptation and Communicative Design Patterns of Interaction in Truthful and Deceptive Conversations , 2001 .

[10]  David Burmester.  The Language of Deceit. , 1973 .

[11]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Does Participation Affect Deception Success? A Test of the Interactivity Principle , 2001 .

[12]  R. Harper.  Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal Behavior: An Overview , 1985 .

[13]  James J. Bradac,et al.  A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles. , 1984 .

[14]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Language Within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication , 1968 .

[15]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  A Mathematical Model of Performance of Computer-Mediated Groups during Idea Generation , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Gerald R. Miller,et al.  "Come to think of it…": Interrogative probes, deceptive communication, and deception detection. , 1986 .

[17]  P. Ekman.  Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace , 1985 .

[18]  G. Gleser,et al.  The relationship of sex and intelligence to choice of words: a normative study of verbal behavior. , 1959, Journal of clinical psychology.

[19]  B. Thorne,et al.  Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance , 1975 .

[20]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance , 1998 .

[21]  J. A. Edinger,et al.  Nonverbal involvement and social control. , 1983 .

[22]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  The less travelled road to truth: verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self‐experienced events , 1997 .

[23]  J. Nunamaker,et al.  Automating Linguistics-Based Cues for Detecting Deception in Text-Based Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communications , 2004 .

[24]  Robert E. Sanders,et al.  Style, meaning, and message effects , 1984 .

[25]  Nancy Barron,et al.  Sex-Typed Language: The Production of Grammatical Cases , 1971 .

[26]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. , 1987 .

[27]  G. Weisfeld,et al.  Dominance Displays as Indicators of a Social Success Motive , 1985 .

[28]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  The fundamental topoi of relational communication , 1984 .

[29]  Stephen Porter,et al.  The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context , 1996 .

[30]  André Rigault,et al.  Male-Female Intonation Patterns in American English , 1972 .

[31]  W. O'barr.  Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom , 1982 .

[32]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception VIII , 1994 .

[33]  A. Vrij.  Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice , 2000 .

[34]  KieslerSara,et al.  Reducing Social Context Cues , 1986 .

[35]  W. Rogers,et al.  EFFECTS OF DOMINANCE TENDENCIES ON FLOOR HOLDING AND INTERRUPTION BEHAVIOR IN DYADIC INTERACTION1 , 1975 .

[36]  Theodore A. Lamb.  Nonverbal and Paraverbal Control in Dyads and Triads: Sex or Power Differences? , 1981 .

[37]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. , 1978 .

[38]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  An interactionist perspective on dominance‐submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill , 2000 .

[39]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[40]  Gerald R. Miller,et al.  DETECTING DECEPTIVE COMMUNICATION FROM VERBAL, VISUAL, AND PARALINGUISTIC CUES1 , 1979 .

[41]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages , 1996 .

[42]  Barry Schwartz,et al.  Dominance cues in nonverbal behavior. , 1982 .

[43]  Dale G. Leathers,et al.  Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective , 1980 .

[44]  H. Mager.  Deception: a study in forensic psychology. , 1931 .

[45]  Caroline F. Keating,et al.  Dominance and Deception in Children and Adults: Are Leaders the Best Misleaders? , 1994 .

[46]  James A. Thurber,et al.  ACCURACY OF JUDGMENTS OF DECEPTION WHEN AN INTERVIEW IS WATCHED, HEARD, AND READ , 1968 .

[47]  Jo Liska.  Dominance-Seeking Language Strategies: Please Eat the Floor, Dogbreath, or I’ll Rip Your Lungs Out, Okay? , 1992 .

[48]  David C. Raskin,et al.  Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence , 1989 .

[49]  Michael J. Cody,et al.  Gender, power, and communication in human relationships , 1996 .

[50]  M. M. Wood,et al.  The Influence of Sex and Knowledge of Communication Effectiveness on Spontaneous Speech , 1966 .

[51]  D. Buss,et al.  Tactics of manipulation. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[52]  H. Dan O'Hair,et al.  Nonverbal Communication and Deception: Differences in Deception Cues Due to Gender and Communicator Dominance. , 1983 .

[53]  B. R. Schlenker,et al.  The Self and social life , 1987 .

[54]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns , 1995 .

[55]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Deceptive Realities , 1996 .

[56]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

[57]  L. Edna Rogers,et al.  Analysis of Relational Communication in Dyads: New Measurement Procedures , 1975 .

[58]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Decoding discrepant nonverbal cues. , 1978 .

[59]  I. Bernstein,et al.  Circumstances in which exact dominance rank may be important , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[60]  M. Zuckerman,et al.  Face and Tone of Voice in the Communication of Deception , 1982 .

[61]  Hiroko Itakura.  Conversational dominance and gender , 2001 .

[62]  Florence Geis,et al.  Machiavellianism and Deception , 1981 .