The role of sex differences in detecting deception in computer-mediated communication in English

[EN] While deception seems to be a common approach in interpersonal communication, most examination on interpersonal deception sees the sex of the interlocutor as unconnected with the capability to notice deceptive messages. This research studies the truth and deception detection capability of both male and female receivers when replying to both true and deceptive messages from both male and female speakers. The outcomes indicate that sex may be a significant variable in comprehending the interpersonal detection probabilities of truth and of lies. An interaction of variables including the speakers’ sex, receivers’ sex, and whether the message appears to be truthful or deceptive is created to relate to detection capability.Kuzio, A. (2018). The role of sex differences in detecting deception in computer-mediated communication in English. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research. 2(1):39-53. doi:10.4995/jclr.2018.10521SWORD395321Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner, 15(1), 6-11.Blalock, H. M. (1972). Social Statistics. New York: McGraw Hill.Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214-234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (2009). Deception in the marketplace : The psychology of deceptive persuasion and consumer self-protection. New York: Routledge.Camden, C., Motley, M. T., & Wilson, A. (1984). White lies in interpersonal communication: A taxonomy and preliminary investigation of social motivations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48(4), 309-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318409374167Carlson, J., George, J., Burgoon, J., Adkins, M., & White, C. (2004). Deception in computer mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011942.31158.d8Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior 6 (pp. 191-233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press.DePaulo, B. M., Epstein, J. A., & Wyer, M. M. (1993). Sex differences in lying: How women and men deal with the dilemma of deceit. In M. Lewis, & C. Saarni (Eds.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 126-147). New York: Guilford Press.DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979- 995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979DePaulo, B. M., Kirkendol, S. E., Tang, J., & O'Brien, T. P. (1988). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(3), 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987487DePaulo, B. M., Lassiter, G. D., & Stone, J. L. (1982). Attention all determinants of success at detecting deception and truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 273-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167282082014DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1713-1722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1713Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99(1), 197-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.06.027Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913-920. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.913Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10(3), 263-266. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00147Feldman, 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(2), 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1207/153248302753674848George, J. F., & Robb, A. (2008). Deception and computer-mediated communication in daily life. Communication Reports, 21(2), 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210802298108Hample, D. (1980). Purposes and effects of lying. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 46(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417948009372474Hancock, J., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior. In E. Dykstra-Erickson, & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 129-134). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985709Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology of deception between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271303Inglehart, R., Basa-ez, M., & Moreno, A. (1998). Human values and beliefs: A crosscultural sourcebook. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.14858Knapp, L. M., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1974.tb00250.xKraut, R. E. (1980). Behavioral roots of person perception: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 784-798. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.784Kuzio, A. (2018). Cross-cultural Deception in Polish and American English in Computer-Mediated Communication. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.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 theory and research (pp. 16-34). New York: Routledge.Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (2006). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the "Veracity Effect". Communication Monographs, 66(2), 125- 144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376468Manstead, A., Wagner, H. L., & McDonald, C. J. (1986). Deceptive and non-deceptive communications: Sending experience, modality, and individual abilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10(3), 147-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987612McCornack, 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/10.1177/0265407590071006Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69(2), 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/714041710Prater, T., & Kiser, S. B. (2002). Lies, lies, and more lies. SAM Advanced Management Journal,67(2), 9-36.Sanchez-Pages, S., & Vorsatz, M. (2008). Enjoy the silence: An experiment on truthtelling. Experimental Economics, 12(2), 220-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9211-7Seiter, J. S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of deception as a function of perceivers' culture, deceiver's intention, and deceiver-deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 66(2), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310209374731Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 2-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.xTurner, R. E., Edgley, C., & Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11(1), 69-89.https://doi.org/10.17161/STR.1808.6098Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (volume 11, pp. 1-59). New York: Academic Press.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-

Activating Boxmind: an evaluation of a web‐based video lecture with synchronized activities

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of synchronous computer‐mediated communication activities in a video e‐lecture. Previous research has reported that learning is facilitated when communication activities are added to a video lecture. Twelve postgraduate students participated in the study and they viewed a video e‐lecture on the perspective‐taking theory of communication. The lecture consisted of a video image of the lecturer, an audio track, slides, the transcript and a number of communication activities. They were given a pre‐test a week before the lecture and a post‐test a week after. They were also asked to rate the helpfulness of various aspects of the lecture. Students’ post‐test scores were statistically significantly higher than their pre‐test scores. They found the audio track, transcript, slides and activities helpful. The most helpful aspects were the communication activities. The implications of these findings are discussed

Community and Social Interaction in Digital Religious Discourse in Nigeria, Ghana and Cameroon

Since the advent of the Internet, religion has maintained a very strong online presence. This study examines how African Christianity is negotiated and practised on the Internet. The main objectives are to investigate to what extent online worshippers in Nigeria, Ghana and Cameroon constitute (online) communities and how interactive the social networks of the churches are. This study shows that some important criteria for community are met by African digital worshippers. However, interaction flow is more of one to many, thus members do not regularly interact with one another as they would in offline worship. Worshippers view the forums as a sacred space solely for spiritual matters and not for sharing social or individual feelings and problems. However, the introduction of social media networks such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and interactive forums is an interesting and promising new development in religious worship in Africa

The volume and source of cyberabuse influences victim blame and perceptions of attractiveness

Cyberabuse is an escalating problem in society, as opportunities for abuse to occur in online public domains increase. Such acts are often defined by the frequency of abuse, and in many cases multiple individuals play a part in the abuse. Although consequences of such acts are often severe, there is typically little public sympathy/support for victims. To better understand perceptions of victims of abusive online acts, we manipulated the Volume (low, high) and Source (same-source, multi-source) of abusive posts in artificially-manipulated Facebook timelines of four fictitious ‘victims’. One hundred and sixty-four participants [United Kingdom-based; aged 18–59] rated ‘victims’ on measures of direct victim blame (DVB) and perceived social-, physical- and task-attractiveness. Results revealed significant Volume × Source interactions on DVB and social-attractiveness ratings. Few abusive posts authored by a single source yielded higher DVB and lower social-attractiveness ratings. Strong correlations between attractiveness and DVB were observed. We propose that our results could be due to an observer desensitization effect, or that participants interpreted the posts as indicative of friendly ‘teasing’ or ‘banter’ within an established social relationship, helping to explain why victims of online abuse often receive little sympathy or support

Detection of Deception in a Virtual World

This work explores the role of multimodal cues in detection of deception in a virtual world, an online community of World of Warcraft players. Case studies from a five-year ethnography are presented in three categories: small-scale deception in text, deception by avoidance, and large-scale deception in game-external modes. Each case study is analyzed in terms of how the affordances of the medium enabled or hampered deception as well as how the members of the community ultimately detected the deception. The ramifications of deception on the community are discussed, as well as the need for researchers to have a deep community knowledge when attempting to understand the role of deception in a complex society. Finally, recommendations are given for assessment of behavior in virtual worlds and the unique considerations that investigators must give to the rules and procedures of online communities.</jats:p

Improving instructional effectiveness with computer‐mediated communication

This study explores the use of asynchronous Computer‐Mediated Communication (CMC) in the delivery of instructional content, and points up the interaction among learners, as well as between learners and instructors. The instructional content in the project described was available to learners online as Microsoft Word documents, with email being used for communicating within the student group. Many students, as well as some of the instructors, felt uncomfortable with the flexibility and openness that a CMC environment allowed. However, once familiar with this process of instruction and interaction, learners were able to work consistently at their own pace, and understand that instructors are interested in every individual learner's opinion and in the collective views of the group. It was evident that a CMC‐based instructional delivery system, when carefully planned, has the potential to facilitate that outcome, and to improve instructional effectiveness

Gender issues in computer‐supported learning

Contemporary research identifies significant gender‐related differences in performance and interaction style in computer‐supported learning (CSL) environments. Evidence suggests that initial perceptions of these environments as democratic and offering equal opportunities to all students were flawed because interactions that take place through electronic channels lose none of the sociocultural complexity or gender imbalance that already exists within society. This paper presents a summary of gender‐related issues identified by international research and academic practice together with the opinions expressed by participants in a discussion forum staged at Alt‐C in 2001. Two main questions were addressed during the conference forum. Firstly, if computer access and literacy levels are assumed to be equalizing as the literature suggests, how can educational designers using CSL technologies best serve all student groups? Secondly, does the existence of gender‐based differences in behaviour and interaction style in CSL environments mean that any student group is disadvantaged? The paper concludes with suggestions about how educational designers might increase the flexibility of CSL courses to offer equal opportunities to all students. A number of issues for further research are also identified

Code choice and code-switching in Swiss-German internet relay chat rooms

In the German-speaking regions of Switzerland, dialect is spoken by all social groups in most communicative situations, Standard German being used only when prescribed. Swiss dialects rarely appeared in written form before the 1980s, apart from the genre of dialect literature. Due to the growing acceptance of informal writing styles in many European languages, dialect is increasingly employed for written personal communication, in particular in computer-mediated communication (CMC). In Swiss Internet Relay Chat (IRC) rooms, varieties of German are used side by side as all chatters have a command of both standard and dialectal varieties. Depending on the channel, the proportion of dialectal contributions can be as high as 90 percent. The choice of a particular variety depends on both individual preference and on the predominant variety used within a specific thread. In this paper I take a quantitative approach to language variation in IRC and demonstrate how such an approach can help embed qualitative research on code-switching in CMC

Cyberpsychology and Human Factors

The online environment has become a significant focus of the everyday behaviour and activities of individuals and organisations in contemporary society. The increasing mediation of communication has led to concerns about the potential risks and associated negative experiences which can occur to users, particularly children and young people. This is related to the emergence of the online environment as a location for criminal and abusive behaviour (e.g., harassment, sexual exploitation, fraud, hacking, malware). One of the key aspects of understanding online victimisation and engagement in criminal behaviours is the characteristics of online communication that are related to the affordances of the technologies, services and applications which constitute digital environments. The aim of this paper is to examine the influence of these characteristics on individual and group behaviour, as well as the associated opportunities for victimisation and criminal behaviour. These issues are of relevance for those involved in the design and implementation of technologies and services, as the ability to assess their potential use in this way can enhance strategies for improving the security of systems and users. It can also inform educational strategies for increasing user understanding of potential informational, privacy and personal risks, and associated steps to improve their security and privacy. Each of the main characteristics of mediated communication is examined, as well as their potential impact on individual and group behaviour, and associated opportunities for victimisation and offending. The article ends by considering the importance of recognising these issues when designing and implementing new technologies, services and applications