This paper examines how power differences and deception jointly influence interactional dominance, credibility, and the outcomes of decision-making. Two theories, interpersonal deception theory and dyadic power theory, were merged to produce hypotheses about the effects of power and deception. A 3 (power: unequal-high, unequal-low, equal) × 3 (deception: truth-truth, truthful with deceptive partner, deceptive with truthful partner) experiment (N = 120) was conducted in which participants were asked to make a series of mock hiring decisions. Actor-partner analyses revealed that participants in the deception condition reported a significant increase in perceptions of their own power whereas their truthful partners reported a significant decrease in perceptions of their own power. Further, interactional dominance fostered credibility and goal attainment (i.e., making the best hiring decision in the truthful condition and hiring a friend in the deceptive condition) for both truth-tellers and deceivers.
AndersonD. E.AnsfieldM. E.DePauloB. M. (1999). Love’s best habit: Deception in the context of relationships. In PhilippotP.FeldmanR. S.CoatsE. J. (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior. (pp. 372-409). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AnolliL.BalconiM.CiceriR. (2003). Linguistic styles in deceptive communication: Dubitative ambiguity and elliptic eluding in packaged lies. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 687-710.
3.
BaldwinA. S.KiviniemiM. T.SnyderM. (2009). A subtle source of power: The effect of having an expectation on anticipated interpersonal power. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 82-104.
4.
BarrS. H.HittM. A. (1986). A comparison of selection decision models in manager versus student samples. Personnel Psychology, 39, 599-617.
5.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
6.
BolesT. L.CrosonR. T. A.MurnighanJ. K. (2000). Deception and retribution in repeated ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 235-259.
7.
BosterF. J.LevineT. R.KazoleasD. (1993). The impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance-gaining behavior. Communication Quarterly, 41, 405-414.
8.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.
9.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K.AfifiW. A.WhiteC. H.BusligA. L. S. (1997, May). The role of cognitive heuristics, message comprehension, cognitive busyness, and behavioral cues on judgements of message credibility. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, PQ, Canada.
10.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K.WhiteC.EbesuA. (1994). Interpersonal deception: VII. Behavioral profiles of falsification, equivocation and concealment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 366-395.
11.
BurgoonJ. K. (2005). Nonverbal measurement of deceit. In ManusovV. (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 237-250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawreence Erlbaum.
12.
BurgoonJ. K.BirkT.PfauM. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140-169.
13.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. B. (2008). Interpersonal deception theory. In BaxterL. A.BraithwaiteD. O. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives. (pp. 227-239). Thousand Oaks, CA US: SAGE.
14.
BurgoonJ. K.DunbarN. E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominance-submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication Monographs, 67, 96-121.
15.
BurgoonJ. K.JohnsonM. L.KochP. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communication Monographs, 65, 308-335.
16.
BurgoonJ. K.Le PoireB. A.RosenthalR. (1995). Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 287-321.
17.
BurgoonJ. K.QinT. (2006). The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 76-96.
18.
CazaB. B.TiedensL.LeeF. (2011). Power becomes you: The effects of implicit and explicit power on the self. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 15-24.
19.
DobbinsG. H.LaneI. M.SteinerD. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioural research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 281-286.
20.
DunbarN. E. (2004). Dyadic Power Theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235-248.
21.
DunbarN. E.AbraG. (2010). Observations of Dyadic Power in Interpersonal Interaction. Communication Monographs, 77, 657-684.
22.
DunbarN. E.BurgoonJ. K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 207-233.
23.
EkmanP. (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
24.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 32, 88-106.
25.
FainzangS. (2002). Lying, secrecy and power within the doctor-patient relationship. Anthropology & Medicine, 9, 117-133.
26.
FalkA.MeierS.ZehnderC. (in press). Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association.
27.
FeeleyT. H.deTurckM. A. (1998). The behavioral correlates of sanctioned and unsanctioned deceptive communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 189-204.
28.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2000). Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515-540.
29.
FrenchJ. R. P.RavenB. (1959). The bases of social power. In CartwrightD. (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
30.
GonzagaG. C.KeltnerD.WardD. (2008). Power in mixed-sex stranger interactions. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 1555-1568.
31.
GordonM. E.SladeL. A.SchmittN. (1986). The “science of the sophomore” revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 191-207.
32.
GreenbergJ. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12, 157-159.
33.
GuinoteA. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1076-1087.
34.
GuinoteA. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 237-252.
35.
HallJ. A.RosipJ. C.Smith LeBeauL.HorganT. G.CarterJ. D. (2006). Attributing the sources of accuracy in unequal-power dyadic communication: Who is better and why?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 18-27.
36.
HovlandC.JanisI.KelleyH. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
HuangL.GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.GuilloryL. E. (2011). Powerful postures versus powerful roles: Which is the proximate correlate of thought and behavior?Psychological Science, 22, 95-102.
38.
JensenM. L.BessarabovaE.AdameB.BurgoonJ. K.SlowikS. M. (2011). Deceptive language by innocent and guilty criminal suspects: The influence of dominance, question, and guilt on interview responses. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 357-375.
39.
KashyD. A.KennyD. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In ReisH. T.JuddM. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology and personality (pp. 451-477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
42.
KomterA. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society, 3, 187-216.
43.
LindseyL. L. M.DunbarN. E.RussellJ. (2011). Deception and power in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 15, 55-79.
44.
LountR. B.Jr.ZhongC.-B.SivanathanN.MurnighanJ. K. (2008). Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1601-1612.
45.
McDonaldG. W. (1980). Family power: The assessment of a decade of theory and research, 1970-1979. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 841-854.
46.
McGuireW. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191-229). New York, NY: Academic Press.
47.
MolmL. D.TakahashiN.PetersonG. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1396-1427.
48.
ParkH. S.LevineT. R.McCornackS. A.MorrisonK.FerreraM. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144-157.
49.
PennebakerJ. W.FrancisM. E.BoothR. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
PfefferJ. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
51.
RobinsonW. P.ShepherdA.HeywoodJ. (1998). Truth, equivocation/concealment, and lies in job applications and doctor-patient communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 149-164.
52.
RogersL. E.CastletonA.LloydS. A. (1996). Relational control and physical aggression in satisfying marital relationships. In CahnD. D.LloydS. A. (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 218-239). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
53.
RogersL. E.FaraceR. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239.
54.
RollinsB. C.BahrS. J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 619-627.
55.
Schmid MastM.HallJ. A. (2003). Anybody can be a boss but only certain people make good subordinates: Behavioral impacts of striving for dominance and dominance aversion. Journal of Personality, 71, 871-891.
56.
Schmid MastM.HallJ. A. (2004). Who is the boss and who is not? Accuracy of judging status. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 145-165.
57.
SchweitzerM. E.CrosonR. (1999). Curtailing deception: The impact of direct questions on lies and omissions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 225-248.
58.
VrijA.FisherR.MannS.LealS. (2008). A cognitive load approach to lie detection. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 39-43.
59.
WestT. V.PearsonA. R.DovidioJ. F.SheltonJ. N.TrailT. E. (2009). Superordinate identity and intergroup roommate friendship development. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 289-292.
60.
ZhouL.BurgoonJ. K.ZhangD.NunamakerJ. F. (2004). Language dominance in interpersonal deception in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 381-402.
61.
ZuckermanM.DePauloB. M.RosenthalR. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advanced in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-57). New York, NY: Academic Press.
62.
ZuckermanM.DriverR. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In SeigmanA. W.FeldsteinS. (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 129-148). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
63.
ZuckermanM.KoestnerR.ColellaM. J.AltonA. O. (1984). Anchoring in the detection of deception and leakage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 301-311.
