Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic Synchrony and Rhythmic Similarity in Lies About Ingroup Affiliation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In an attempt to enhance the likelihood that a lie is perceived as truthful, deceivers might strategically attempt to build rapport in an interaction. Deceivers can build this rapport by coordinating behaviors with their interaction partners, thereby creating interpersonal synchrony. The goal of this study was to empirically test whether deceptive message senders strategically synchronize their behaviors with those of their receivers when speaking with an ingroup member about ingroup affiliation—where deception is not expected. We employed a 3 × 2 factorial design (N = 222 valid cases) in which the level of involvement enacted by partner one (high, low, or control) and the veracity of claims made by partner two (truth or deception) were manipulated. This paper discusses three findings that were observed in this study: (1) Consistent with the truth bias, most people perceived their partner as truthful (84%) or were unsure of the partner’s truthfulness. (2) Contrary to expectations, interaction partners rated deceivers lower than truth tellers in rapport and synchrony, but results indicated that greater involvement was related to increased synchronization and rapport. (3) Finally, both trained coders and automated spectrum analysis observed almost no difference between deceivers and truth-tellers in the interaction behaviors, but deceivers showed more synchrony in their faster movements. This demonstrates a relationship between synchrony and deception that can only be observed via automated analysis, suggesting an important avenue for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An examination of the sample size chart from Keppel (1991, p. 72) indicates that in order to achieve power of .70 with an effect size of .06, 36 subjects are needed per cell in the experiment.

  2. Because none of these measures emerged as significant covariates, they are not reported here.

  3. This topic was selected because previous studies at the same university (Dragojevic and Giles 2014) have found that participants have a high level of identification with the university and that the university is a common topic of everyday conversation.

  4. Due to very low frequency of occurrence, eye synchrony, vocal synchrony, tempo synchrony, and other synchrony were omitted from analyses.

  5. Due to equipment malfunctions, the videos from four dyads were lost but their self-report data were retained.

  6. Eta squared was hand-calculated using the formula η2 = SSbetween/SStotal (see Levine and Hullett 2002).

  7. In the interests of space, non-significant results are not reported here but p-values ranged from .39 to .95.

References

  • Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research,7, 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909887909365204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations. London, UK: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernieri, F. J., Gillis, J. S., Davis, J. M., & Grahe, J. E. (1996). Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71, 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernieri, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interactional synchrony. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 401–432). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review,10, 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2b.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory,6, 203–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K. (2014). Interpersonal deception theory. In T. R. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (pp. 532–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (2015). Interpersonal deception theory: Purposive and interdependent behavior during deceptive interpersonal interactions. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 349–362). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Dillman, L., & Walther, J. B. (1995a). Interpersonal deception. Human Communication Research,22, 163–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00365.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Floyd, K. (2001). Does participation affect deception success? A test of the interactivity principle. Human Communication Research,27(4), 503–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., White, C. H., Afifi, W., & Buslig, A. L. S. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Dunbar, N. E., & Giles, H. (2017). Interaction coordination and adaptation. In A. Vinciarelli, M. Pantic, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, & J. Burgoon (Eds.), Social signal processing (pp. 78–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Dunbar, N. E., & White, C. (2014). Interpersonal adaptation. In C. R. Berger (Ed.), Interpersonal communication: Handbooks of communication science (pp. 225–248). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995b). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, J. N. (1997). Behavioral and judged coordination in adult informal social interactions: Vocal and kinesic indicators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72, 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupland, J. (2014). Small talk. London, UK: Rouledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragojevic, M., & Giles, H. (2014). The reference frame effect: An intergroup perspective on language attitudes. Human Communication Research,40(1), 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Altieri, N., Jensen, M. L., & Wenger, M. J. (2013, January). The viability of EEG as a method of deception detection. Paper presented at the 46th Hawaiian international conference on system sciences, Maui, HI.

  • Dunbar, N. E., & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). The measurement of nonverbal dominance. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 361–374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Gangi, K., Coveleski, S., Adams, A., Bernhold, Q., & Giles, H. (2016). When is it acceptable to lie? Interpersonal and intergroup perspectives on deception. Communication Studies,67, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2016.11.46911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. J., Bessarabova, E., Burgoon, J. K., Bernard, D. R., Robertson, K. J., et al. (2014a). Empowered by persuasive deception: The effects of power and deception on dominance, credibility, and decision-making. Communication Research,41(6), 869–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Burgoon, J. K., Kelley, K. M., Harrison, K. J., Adame, B. J., et al. (2015). Effects of veracity, modality, and sanctioning on credibility assessment during mediated and unmediated interviews. Communication Research,42(5), 649–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Tower, D. C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2014b). Synchronization of nonverbal behaviors in detecting mediated and non-mediated deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,38, 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0179-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, R. S., Forrest, J. A., & Happ, B. R. (2002). Self-presentation and verbal deception: Do self-presenters lie more? Basic and Applied Social Psychology,24, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2402_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujiwara, K., & Daibo, I. (2016). Evaluating interpersonal synchrony: Wavelet transform toward an unstructured conversation. Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasiorek, J., & Giles, H. (2012). Effects of inferred motive on evaluations of nonaccommodative communication. Human Communication Research,38, 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01426.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasiorek, J., & Giles, H. (2015). The role of inferred motive in processing nonaccommodation: Evaluations of communication and speakers. Western Journal of Communication,79(4), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1066030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giles, H. (Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, N. Coupland, & J. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1–68). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511663673.001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Giles, H., & Giles, J. L. (2012). Ingroups and outgroups communicating. In A. Kurylo (Ed.), Inter/cultural communication: Representation and construction of culture in everyday interaction (pp. 141–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, H., & Soliz, J. (2014). Communication accommodation theory: A situated framework for interpersonal, family, and intergroup dynamics. In D. Braithewaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging interpersonal theories (2nd ed., pp. 157–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenaway, K., Peters, K., Haslam, S. A., & Bingley, W. (2016). Shared identity and the intergroup dynamics of communication. In H. Giles & A. Maass (Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 19–34). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. O. (1995). Production of messages in pursuit of multiple social goals: Action assembly theory contributions to the study of cognitive encoding processes. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 18, pp. 26–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., & Jevrejeva, S. (2004). Application of the cross wavelet transform and wavelet coherence to geophysical time series. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics,11, 561–566. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-11-5612004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Kunkel, A. (2013). Tell me sweet (and not-so-sweet) little lies: Deception in romantic relationships. Communication Studies,64, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.755637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology,28, 661–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Issartel, J., Bardainne, T., Gaillot, P., & Marin, L. (2014). The relevance of the crosswavelet transform in the analysis of human interaction—a tutorial. Frontiers in Psychology,5, 1566. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Issartel, J., Marin, L., Gaillot, P., Bardainne, T., & Cadopi, M. (2006). A practical guide to time-frequency analysis in the study of human motor behavior: The contribution of wavelet transform. Journal of Motor Behavior,38, 139–159. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.38.2.139-159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermann, K. (1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic. Communication Monographs,59, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,33, 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14535916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R., & Hullett, C. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research,28(4), 612–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R., & Kim, R. K. (2010). Some considerations for a new theory of deceptive communication. In M. S. McGlone & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), The interplay of truth and deception: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 16–34). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs,59, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meservy, T. O. (2010). CBAS 2.0: Software tools to code human nonverbal behavior. Final report presented at the Center for Identification Technology research spring conference, Skaneateles Falls, NY.

  • Myers, K. K., Davis, C. W., Richardson Schreuder, E., & Seibold, D. R. (2016). Organizational identification: A mixed methods study exploring students’ relationship with their university. Communication Quarterly,64, 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1103285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, T. R. (2008). Lie acceptability: A construct and measure. Communication Research Reports,25, 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090802440170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramseyer, F., & Tschacher, W. (2011). Nonverbal synchrony in psychotherapy: Coordinated body movement reflects relationship quality and outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,79, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., Isenhower, R. W., Goodman, J. R. L., & Schmidt, R. C. (2007). Rocking together: Dynamics of intentional and unintentional interpersonal coordination. Human Movement Science,26, 867–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. C., Morr, S., Fitzpatrick, P., & Richardson, M. J. (2012). Measuring the dynamics of interactional synchrony. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,36, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0138-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. C., & O’Brien, B. (1997). Evaluating the dynamics of unintended interpersonal coordination. Ecological Psychology,9, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0903_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serota, K. B., & Levine, T. R. (2014). A few prolific liars: Variation in the prevalence of lying. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,34, 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14528804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L. (2016). Deception and cognitive load: Expanding our horizon with a working memory model. Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, C. N., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). Lies, damn lies, and expectations: How base rates inform lie–truth judgments. Applied Cognitive Psychology,29, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thakerar, J. N., Giles, H., & Cheshire, J. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In C. Fraser & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205–255). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickle-Degnen, L. (2006). Nonverbal behavior and its functions in the ecosystem of rapport. In V. Manusov & M. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 381–399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Swol, L. M., Braun, M. T., & Malhotra, D. (2012). Evidence for the Pinocchio effect: Linguistic differences between lies, deception by omissions, and truths. Discourse Processes,49(2), 79–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, X., Zhang, S., Yan, Z., Yang, F., Huang, J., Dunbar, N. E., et al. (2015). Is interactional dissynchrony a clue to deception? Insights from automated analysis of nonverbal visual cues. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,45, 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2014.2329673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of California Santa Barbara, 4109 Social Sciences and Media Studies Building, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA

    Norah E. Dunbar, Howard Giles, Quinten Bernhold, Matthew Giles, Nicole Zamanzadeh, Katlyn Gangi & Samantha Coveleski

  2. Department of Communication Studies, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, USA

    Aubrie Adams

  3. Faculty of Human Sciences, Osaka University of Economics, Osaka, Japan

    Ken Fujiwara

Authors
  1. Norah E. Dunbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Howard Giles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quinten Bernhold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aubrie Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew Giles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicole Zamanzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Katlyn Gangi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Samantha Coveleski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ken Fujiwara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norah E. Dunbar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dunbar, N.E., Giles, H., Bernhold, Q. et al. Strategic Synchrony and Rhythmic Similarity in Lies About Ingroup Affiliation. J Nonverbal Behav 44, 153–172 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00321-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00321-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation