Empowered by Persuasive Deception

Dunbar, Norah E.; Jensen, Matthew L.; Bessarabova, Elena; Burgoon, Judee K.; Bernard, Daniel Rex; Harrison, Kylie J.; Kelley, Katherine M.; Adame, Bradley J.; Eckstein, Jacqueline M.

doi:10.1177/0093650212447099

Cited by 33 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, we note that while our study identified associations of decision-making power with complaint-related processes in young adult romantic relationships, our results may not necessarily generalize beyond these contexts. Although evidence is emerging that DPT may apply outside of romantic contexts (Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Dunbar et al, 2014), further exploration is needed of the extent to which the relationship of decision-making power to complaint-related processes is relevant in non-romantic settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complaint Avoidance and Complaint-Related Appraisals in Close Relationships

Worley

Samp

2014

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the role of decision-making power in withholding communicating about relational complaints. A total of 350 participants (nested in 175 couples) completed surveys about the balance of decision-making power in their relationship, complaint avoidance, and complaint-related appraisals. Decision-making power had a curvilinear association with avoidance, such that individuals engaged in the least complaint avoidance when they were relatively equal to their partners in power. For complaint-related appraisals, problems were perceived as least severe, and outcome expectancies and communication efficacy assessments were most positive, when power was equal. Furthermore, severity appraisals and outcome expectancies mediated the curvilinear association of power with complaint avoidance. Results provided support for Dyadic Power Theory outside of laboratory contexts, and highlight cognitive mechanisms through which decision-making power may influence communication in close relationships.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complaint Avoidance and Complaint-Related Appraisals in Close Relationships

Worley

Samp

2014

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methodology mirrored that of Dunbar et al (2014) , which used chat conversations. The experiments were held on an online platform for synchronous video communication.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One resume was of medium quality. Dunbar et al (2014) pilot-tested the resumes with experts who unanimously agreed on the strongest and weakest resumes. For the four-person group, one of the high-quality resumes were not distributed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting ulterior motives from verbal cues in group deliberations

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionForensic interviewing entails practitioners interviewing suspects to secure valid information and elicit confessions. Such interviews are often conducted in police stations but may also occur in field settings such as border crossings, security checkpoints, bus terminals, and sports venues. Because these real-world interviews often lack experimental control and ground truth, this investigation explored whether results of non-forensic interviews generalize to forensic ones.MethodsOrganizational espionage was simulated to determine (1) what verbal signals distinguish truth from deception, (2) whether deception in groups aligns with deception in dyads, and (3) whether non-forensic venues can be generalized to forensic ones. Engaging in a mock hiring deliberation, participants (4–5 strangers) reviewed and discussed resumes of potential candidates. Surreptitiously, two group members assigned the role of “organizational spies” attempted to persuade the group to hire an inferior candidate. Each group member presented notes from an interview of “their” candidate, followed by a discussion of all candidates. Spies were to use any means possible, including deception, to persuade others to select their candidate. A financial incentive was offered for having one’s candidate chosen. The interview reports and discussions were transcribed and analyzed with SPLICE, an automated text analysis program.ResultsDeceivers were perceived as less trustworthy than truth-tellers, especially when the naïve players won but overall, deceivers were difficult for non-spies to detect even though they were seen as less trustworthy than the naïve participants. Deceivers’ language was more complex and exhibited an “echoing” strategy of repeating others’ opinions. This collusion evolved naturally, without pre-planning. No other verbal differences were evident, which suggests that the difference between spies and non-spies was subtle and difficult for truth-tellers to spot.DiscussionWhether deception can be successfully detected hinges on a variety of factors including the deceiver’s skill to disguise and the detector’s ability to sense and process information. Furthermore, the group dynamics and communication context subtly moderate how deception manifests and influence the accuracy of detecting ulterior motives. Our future investigations could encompass non-verbal communication channels and verbal patterns rooted in content, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of deception detection.

show abstract

“…The lack of affect, positive or negative, and the confidence of sanctioned deceivers could make them appear more believable than unsanctioned deceivers (Burgoon & Dunbar, 2000). The very fact that sanctioned liars know something their partner does not (such as the purpose of the experiment) can also empower them and make them appear more credible (Dunbar et al, 2012). This may explain why Feeley and deTurck (1998) had 8 participants who confessed to cheating in their experiment in the unsanctioned lie condition (or about 22%), whereas no participant in the sanctioned lie condition confessed.…”

Section: Experimenter Sanctioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Veracity, Modality, and Sanctioning on Credibility Assessment During Mediated and Unmediated Interviews

Dunbar

Jensen

Burgoon

et al. 2013

Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment examined how veracity, modality, and experimenter sanctioning of deception influenced credibility assessments made by professionals who conducted interviews face-to-face (FtF) or by video conference (VC). Participants (N = 243) completed a trivia game with a confederate who encouraged cheating. Some lies were sanctioned by the experimenter and others were unsanctioned. The professional interviewers educed a high number of confessions in the sanctioned (58%) and unsanctioned (79%) lie conditions. Overall accuracy of the interviewers ranged from 45% to 67%. Interviewers were more accurate when judging veracity FtF than in VC. Those in the deceptive VC conditions (especially sanctioned liars) were rated by interviewers as more dominant, involved, relaxed, and active than those in the FtF condition, revealing that modality affected deceivers' demeanor.

show abstract

Empowered by Persuasive Deception

Cited by 33 publications

References 50 publications

Complaint Avoidance and Complaint-Related Appraisals in Close Relationships

Complaint Avoidance and Complaint-Related Appraisals in Close Relationships

Detecting ulterior motives from verbal cues in group deliberations

Effects of Veracity, Modality, and Sanctioning on Credibility Assessment During Mediated and Unmediated Interviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About