The Role of References and Emotions in Creating Deceptive Messages on Online Dating Websites:  A Case Study of English and Polish

Anna Kuzio

doi:7010198

Deception might be characterized by a variety of behaviors, both verbal and non-verbal, that are aimed at deliberately making a receiver believe in statements of a sender of a message. Particular techniques used by deceivers might be, however, detected because many researchers reveal certain cues that are characteristics of deception. Liars are believed to use pronouns in a particular way, but the amount and way personal information is provided is common among deceivers as well. Online communication seems to be a phenomenon that allows users to stay anonymous thanks to deception because detecting lying only through linguistic behaviors proves to pose more difficulties deprived of non-verbal communication cues. Nevertheless, the research that is presented and described in this paper aim at revealing deception that might be observable in profiles on online dating profiles. The two websites chosen for this research are: dating.telegraph.co.uk and swatka.pl. For the purpose of this paper, samples of short utterances presented in twenty male and twenty female profiles from one Polish and one English dating page were analyzed and some fragments selected from them will be presented and analyzed in more details in this paper.

[1]

Bortfeld, H., & Herring, S. (1998). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Language, 74(2), 420. doi:10.2307/417910.

[2]

Budzynska, K., Araszkiewicz, M., Bogołȩbska, B., Cap, P., Ciecierski, T., & Debowska-Kozlowska, K. et al. (2014). The Polish School of Argumentation: A Manifesto. Argumentation, 28(3), 267-282. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9320-8.

[3]

Buller, D. B. and J. K. Burgoon (1996). "Interpersonal deception theory." Communication Theory 6: 203-242.

[4]

Burgoon, J., Buller, D., & Floyd, K. (2001). Does Participation Affect Deception Success?. Human Communication Research, 27(4), 503-534. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00791.x.

[5]

Canter, D., & Alison, L. (1999). Interviewing and deception. Aldershot, Hants, England: Brookfield, VT.

[6]

Clifford, B. (2001). Detecting lies and deceit: the psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(5), 581-583. doi:10.1002/acp.743.

[7]

DePaulo, B., Kashy, D., Kirkendol, S., Wyer, M., & Epstein, J. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 70 (5), 979-995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979.

[8]

DePaulo, B. (1997). Truth and Distortion: Insights and Oversights About Deceit. Psyccritiques, 42(8). doi:10.1037/000152.

[9]

Dervin, F. (2011). Introducing intercultural communication. Language And Intercultural Communication, 11(4), 408-410. doi:10.1080/14708477.2011.614551.

[10]

Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. (1999). A Few Can Catch a Liar. Psychological Science, 10(3), 263-266. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00147.

[11]

Gales, T. (2011). Identifying interpersonal stance in threatening discourse: An appraisal analysis. Discourse Studies, 13(1), 27-46. doi: 10.1177/1461445610387735.

[12]

Hancock, J., Curry, L., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 1-23. doi:10.1080/01638530701739181.

[13]

Kuzio, A. (2014) Exploitation of Schemata in Persuasive and Manipulative Discourse in English, Polish and Russian. Newcastle upone Tyne:Cambrige Scholars Publishing.

[14]

Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2014). Police Detection of Deception: Beliefs About Behavioral Cues to Deception Are Strong Even Though Contextual Evidence Is More Useful. J Commun, 65(1), 125-145. doi:10.1111/jcom.12135.

[15]

Pflug, J. (2011). Contextuality and computer-mediated communication: a cross cultural comparison. Computers In Human Behavior, 27(1), 131-137. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.008.

[16]

Phipps, A. (2013). Intercultural ethics: questions of methods in language and intercultural communication. Language And Intercultural Communication, 13(1), 10-26. doi:10.1080/14708477.2012.748787.

[17]

Picornell, I. (2012). The rake's progress: linguistic strategies for deception. Proceedings of The International Association of Forensic Linguistics' Tenth Biennial Conference (pp. 155-159). Birmingham: Centre for Forensic Linguistics.

[18]

Proverbio, A., Vanutelli, M., & Adorni, R. (2013). Can You Catch a Liar? How Negative Emotions Affect Brain Responses when Lying or Telling the Truth. Plos ONE, 8(3), e59383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059383.

[19]

van Dijk, T. (2013). The field of Epistemic Discourse Analysis. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 497-499. doi:10.1177/1461445613501448.

[20]

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit. Chichester: John Wiley.

[21]

http://dating.telegraph.co.uk/s/view/1027158/P/0 Acessed: January 8th, 2013.

[22]

<http://www.swatka.pl/search/index/s_age/25-29/s_sex/male/s_photo/1/s_online/0>. Acessed: January 8th, 2013.