Chapter 9 offered a methodological demonstration of how various statistical analysis techniques spotlight different facets of the adaptation process, with some being more enlightening than others. It also offered empirical evidence for a complex set of adaptation patterns. Because no single investigation is definitive, this chapter presents results from additional dyadic interaction studies to (a) illustrate how statistical methods compare on their informativeness and degree of complementarity and (b) present additional empirical evidence about which adaptation patterns are most prevalent in face–to–face interactions. Before firm conclusions can be drawn, interaction patterns found in one context need to be compared and contrasted with patterns found in others to see whether patterns are stable across contexts or applicable only to specific kinds of contexts such as scripted or structured routines like interviews. These investigations therefore also (c) identify possible moderating factors controlling the different patterns and (d) address the generalizability of our conclusions.

We begin with a detailed description of another dyadic interaction experiment, followed by a briefer summary of findings related to reciprocity and compensation taken from two experiments on deception and suspicion.

A SECOND MULTIMETHOD DYADIC INTERACTION EXPERIMENT

Whereas the investigation reported in Chapter 9 employed an interview task and setting, the current one employed discussions of social and moral dilemmas. An interview context is highly constrained by the prevalence of role–bound behavior. A discussion format, however, allows much more participant freedom; participants are constrained mainly by social norms and “laboratory expectations.”