This study, grounded in the interpersonal deception theory (IDT), aims to analyze the new form of digital deception known as “visual poverty” in livestreaming rooms. Through a multimodal discourse analysis of the collected data, this study found three distinct linguistic strategies employed in “visual poverty” livestream: illocutionary strategy, discourse strategy, and nonverbal strategy. These strategies are designed to achieve three interactional goals: constructing a false identity, reinforcing credibility, and gaining economic benefits. Based on these findings, this study further analyzed why it is difficult to detect digital deception and proposed suggestions to prevent it. This study theoretically proposes online IDT and offers practical suggestions for preventing digital deception, bearing both theoretical and practical significance.
AderibigbeY (2023) Digital deception in the online dating space: A study of Tinder. [Dissertation/Thesis, Department of Communication Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada].
2.
AlabiOTshotshoBCekisoMLandaN (2017) An examination of emotive style in online begging discourse. Gender and Behaviour15(2): 8631–8641.
3.
AlowibdiJSBuyUAPhilipSYStennethL (2014) Detecting deception in online social networks. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2014). New York: IEEE, pp. 383–390.
4.
ArciuliJMallardDVillarG (2010) “Um, I can tell you’re lying”: Linguistic markers of deception versus truth-telling in speech. Applied Psycholinguistics31(3): 397–411.
5.
ArgyratosT (2021) Information Theoretic Analysis of Deception and Decisions in Networks. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
6.
BaberiniMColemanCLSlovicPVästfjällD (2015) Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual Communication Quarterly22(2): 118–128.
7.
BrownPLevinsonSC (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BullerDBBurgoonJK (1996) Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory6(3): 203–242.
9.
BullerDBHunsakerF (1995) Interpersonal deception: XIII. Suspicion and the truth-bias of conversational participants. In: AitkenJ (ed.) Intrapersonal Communication Processes Reader. Westland: Hayden-McNeil, pp. 239–251.
10.
BurgoonJK (1993) Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology12: 13–21.
11.
BurgoonJKBullerDBGuerreroLKFeldmanCM (1994) Interpersonal deception: VI. Effects of preinteractional and interactional factors on deceiver and observer perceptions of deception success. Communication Studies45: 263–280.
CarrCT (2021) Computer-mediated Communication: A Theoretical and Practical Introduction to Online Human Communication. Lanbam: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
ChadwickAHallNAVaccariC (2023) Misinformation rules!? Could “group rules” reduce misinformation in online personal messaging?New Media & Society 14614448231172964.
15.
ChenX (2021) Exploring Identity Work in Chinese Communication. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
16.
ChiangEGrantT (2019) Deceptive identity performance: Offender moves and multiple identities in online child abuse conversations. Applied Linguistics40(4): 675–698.
17.
ChiluwaI (2009) The discourse of digital deceptions and ‘419’emails. Discourse Studies11(6): 635–660.
18.
CollisterLB (2013) Detection of deception in a virtual world. Linguistic Evidence in Security, Law and Intelligence1(1): 51–66.
19.
DonathJ (1999) Identity and deception in the virtual community. In: SmithMAKollockP (eds) Communities in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge, pp. 29–59.
20.
DrouinMMillerDWehleSMJ, et al (2016) Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the internet.”Computers in Human Behavior64: 134–142.
21.
EkmanPFriesenWV (1969) Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry32: 88–105.
22.
GalasinskiD (2000) The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. London: Sage Publications.
23.
GlenskiMVolkovaSKumarS (2020) User engagement with digital deception. In: ShuKWangSLeeDLiuH (eds) Disinformation, Misinformation, and Fake News in Social Media: Emerging Research Challenges and Opportunities. Cham: Springer, pp. 39–61.
24.
GreysonDCostelloKL (2023) “Emotional strip-mining”: Sympathy sockpuppets in online communities. New Media & Society25(12): 3328–3349.
25.
HancockJT (2007) Digital deception. Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology61(5): 289–301.
26.
HarriganJA (2005) Proxemics, kinesics, and gaze. In: HarriganJRosenthalRSchererK (eds) The New Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 137–198.
27.
HendriksH (2005) Structuring space in discourse: A comparison of Chinese, English, French and German L1 and English, French and German L2 acquisition. The Structure of Learner Varieties28: 111.
28.
HoSMHancockJT (2019) Context in a bottle: Language-action cues in spontaneous computer-mediated deception. Computers in Human Behavior91: 33–41.
29.
KressG (2010) Multimodality. New York: Routledge.
30.
KurniasihNFalaakhMFSetyaningsihN (2022) Illocutionary speech act analysis of virtual Youtuber’s viewers in super chat. In: UNCLLE (Undergraduate Conference on Language, Literature, and Culture), pp. 298–308. Available at: https://publikasi.dinus.ac.id/index.php/unclle
31.
LevitanSIMarediaAHirschbergJ (2018) Linguistic cues to deception and perceived deception in interview dialogues. In:Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1941–1950.
32.
LewisCCGeorgeJF (2008) Cross-cultural deception in social networking sites and face-to-face communication. Computers in Human Behavior24(6): 2945–2964.
33.
LuBChenZ (2021) Live streaming commerce and consumers’ purchase intention: An uncertainty reduction perspective. Information & Management58(7): 103509.
34.
MacdonaldS (2006) Propaganda and Information Warfare in the Twenty-First Century: Altered Images and Deception Operations. New York: Routledge.
35.
MalinCHGudaitisTHoltTKilgerM (2017) Deception in the Digital Age: Exploiting and Defending Human Targets through Computer-mediated Communications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
36.
MalinenS (2011) Strategies for gaining visibility on Flickr. In: 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. New York: IEEE, pp. 1–9.
37.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD (1995) “An integrative model of organizational trust.”Academy of Management Journal38(3): 24–59.
38.
McCroskeyJCYoungTJ (1981) Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal32: 24–34.
39.
MosleyMALancasterMParkerML, et al (2020) Adult attachment and online dating deception: a theory modernized. Sexual and Relationship Therapy35(2): 227–243.
40.
OswaldS (2011) From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning. Discourse Studies13(6): 806–814.
41.
RecktenwaldD (2018) The discourse of online live streaming on Twitch: Communication between conversation and commentary. Dissertation/Thesis, Department of English, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
42.
RockmannKWNorthcraftGB (2008) To be or not to be trusted: The influence of media richness on defection and deception. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes107(2): 106–122.
43.
SamoilenkoSA (2017) Strategic deception in the age of “truthiness.”Deception and Deceptive Communication: Motivations, Recognition Techniques and Behavioral Control129–168.
44.
SanfilippoMRYangSFichmanP (2017) Trolling here, there, and everywhere: perceptions of trolling behaviors in context. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology68(10): 2313–2327.
45.
ShachafPHaraN (2010) Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science36(3): 357–370.
46.
Spencer-OateyH (2004) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures. London: A&C Black.
47.
SperberDClémentFHeintzC, et al (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language25(4): 359–393.
48.
StewartNKAl-RawiACelestiniCWorkuN (2023) Hate influencers’ mediation of hate on telegram: “We declare war against the anti-white system.”Social Media+ Society9(2): 20563051231177915.
49.
TaylorJPulmanATickleO (2024) Exploring the attitudes of young people toward catfish impersonating and feigning illness on social media. Handbook of Social Media Use Online Relationships, Security, Privacy, and Society (2): 289–308.
50.
TomaCLBonusJAVan SwolLM (2019) Lying online: examining the production, detection, and popular beliefs surrounding interpersonal deception in technologically-mediated environments. In: Docan-MorganT (ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Cham: Springer, pp. 583–601.
51.
TomaCLHancockJT (2012) What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication62(1): 78–97.
52.
UtzS (2005) Types of deception and underlying motivation: what people think. Social Science Computer Review23(1): 49–56.
53.
Van der WaltEEloffJHGroblerJ (2018) Cyber-security: Identity deception detection on social media platforms. Computers & Security78: 76–89.
54.
YangK (2023) “Trust X, because Y” A corpus-assisted analysis of trust-related metalanguage labels and trustworthiness cues. Pragmatics and Society14(5): 753–776.
55.
YangK (2024) How to rebuild trust through apology: Evidence from public apology letters. Journal of Pragmatics224: 36–45.
