Abstract
Power is an integral part of group dynamics and when deception is involved, it affects the process of group decision-making as well as the outcomes of those decisions. We examined 95 groups playing a popular party card game called Mafia in which some players were randomly assigned the role of Spies, and others, the role of Villagers. Spies concealed their identity and deceived the other naïve players (the Villagers), who were assumed to be truthful. Data were collected from University students around the world, including in Israel, Singapore, Hong Kong, Fiji, Zambia, and three locations within the U.S. The results revealed differences in the way that players from those different cultural locations exhibited dominance and rated the trustworthiness of other players. In general, more dominant players were seen as more trustworthy, although that was moderated by the cultural location. Spies (deceivers) were viewed as less dominant than Villagers (truth-tellers). Males were rated as more dominant, especially when in the Spy role. The implications for this study on the study of groups and power relations among group members are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles, 39(3–4), 225–252. https://doi.org/1018802521676.
Baker, M. A. (1991). Gender and verbal communication in professional settings: A review of research. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(1), 36–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318991005001003.
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_2.
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100303.
Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (2008). Interpersonal deception theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 227–239). SAGE. https://doi.org/0.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.
Burgoon, J. K., & Dillman, L. (1995). Gender, immediacy and nonverbal communication. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 63–81). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Burgoon, J., & Dunbar, N. (2018). Coding nonverbal behavior. In The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis. Cambridge handbooks in psychology (pp. 104–120).
Burgoon, J. K., & Qin, T. (2006). The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x05284482.
Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., & Doran, N. E. (1983). Effects of violations of expectations of males and females. Human Communication Research, 10, 283–294.
Burgoon, J. K., Coker, D. A., & Coker, R. A. (1986). Communicative effects of gaze behavior: A test of two contrasting explanations. Human Communication Research, 12(4), 495–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00089.x.
Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communications Monographs, 65(4), 308–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376456.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Blair, J. P., & Tilley, P. (2006). Sex differences in presenting and detecting deceptive messages. In D. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 263–280). Mahwah: LEA.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.2.322.
deTurck, M. A. (2009). Training observers to detect spontaneous deception: Effects of gender. Communication Reports, 4, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219109367528.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 601–620. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926629.
Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic Power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.9670133.
Dunbar, N. E., & Abra, G. (2010). Observations of dyadic power in interpersonal interaction. Communication Monographs, 77, 657–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.520018.
Dunbar, N. E., & Johnson, A. J. (2015). A test of dyadic power theory: control attempts recalled from interpersonal interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.1.03dun.
Dunbar, N. E., & Bernhold, Q. (2019). Interpersonal power and nonverbal communication. In C. R. Agnew & J. J. Harmon (Eds.), Power in close relationships (pp. 261–278). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Bessarbova, E., Burgoon, J. K., Bernard, D. R., Harrison, K. J., & Eckstein, J. M. (2014). Empowered by persuasive deception. Communication Research, 41, 852–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447099.
Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Burgoon, J. K., Kelley, K. M., Harrison, K. J., Adame, B. J., & Bernard, D. R. (2015). Effects of veracity, modality, and sanctioning on credibility assessment during mediated and unmediated interviews. Communication Research, 42, 649–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213480175.
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(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2016.1146911.
Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913–920. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.913.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.
Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595412.
Giles, M., Pines, R., Giles, H., & Gardikiotis, A. (2018). Toward a communication model of intergroup interdependence. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 26, 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2018.1432222.
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490867.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco: Wiley.
Koch, S. C., Baehne, C. G., Kruse, L., Simmermann, F., & Zumbach, J. (2010). Visual dominance and visual egalitarianism: Individual and group-level influences of sex and status in group interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-010-0088-8.
Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M., & Spahn, D. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037877.
Lindsey, L. L. M., Dunbar, N. E., & Russell, J. C. (2011). Risky business or managed event? Perceptions of power and deception in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 15(1), 55. https://doi.org/10945/56702.
Marett, L. K., & George, J. F. (2004). Deception in the case of one sender and multiple receivers. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011943.73672.9b.
McCornack, S. A., & Parks, M. R. (1990). What women know that men don’t: Sex differences in determining the truth behind deceptive messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590071006.
Miller, C. H., Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Massey, Z., Lee, Y-. H., Nicholls, S. B., Anderson, C., Adams, A. S., Elizondo Cecena, F. J., Thompson, W., & Wilson, S. N. (2019). Training law enforcement officers to identify reliable deception cues with a serious digital game. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 9(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2019070101.
Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research, 41, 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358618.
Orcutt, J. D., & Harvey, L. K. (1985). Deviance, rule-breaking and male dominance in conversation. Symbolic Interaction, 8(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1985.8.1.15.
Raybourn, E. M. (2007). Applying simulation experience design methods to creating serious game-based adaptive training systems. Interacting with Computers, 19(2), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2006.08.001.
Raven, B. H., Centers, R., & Rodrigues, A. (1975). The bases of conjugal power. In R. E. Cromwell & D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in families (pp. 217–232). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rollins, B. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 619–627. https://doi.org/10.2307/350682.
Serbin, L. A., Sprafkin, C., Elman, M., & Doyle, A. B. (1982). The early development of sex-differentiated patterns of social influence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 14(4), 350. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0081269.
Williams, K. D. (2010). Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small Group Research, 41, 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358619.
Zhou, L., & Zhang, D. (2006). A comparison of deception behavior in dyad and triadic group decision making in synchronous computer mediated communication. Small Group Research, 37, 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405285125.
Zhou, L., Zhang, D., & Sung, Y. (2013). The effects of group factors on deception detection performance. Small Group Research, 44, 272–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413484178.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the Army Research Office for funding much of the work reported in this book under Grant W911NF-16-1-0342.
Funding Disclosure
This research was sponsored by the Army Research Office and was accomplished under Grant Number W911NF-16-1-0342. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Office or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dunbar, N.E. et al. (2021). Dominance in Groups: How Dyadic Power Theory Can Apply to Group Discussions. In: Subrahmanian, V.S., Burgoon, J.K., Dunbar, N.E. (eds) Detecting Trust and Deception in Group Interaction. Terrorism, Security, and Computation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54383-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54383-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54382-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54383-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)