Abstract State Machines 1988-1998: Commented ASM Bibliography

An annotated bibliography of papers which deal with or use Abstract State Machines (ASMs), as of January 1998.Comment: Also maintained as a BibTeX file at http://www.eecs.umich.edu/gasm

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-

Review of research in feature-based design

Research in feature-based design is reviewed. Feature-based design is regarded as a key factor towards CAD/CAPP integration from a process planning point of view. From a design point of view, feature-based design offers possibilities for supporting the design process better than current CAD systems do. The evolution of feature definitions is briefly discussed. Features and their role in the design process and as representatives of design-objects and design-object knowledge are discussed. The main research issues related to feature-based design are outlined. These are: feature representation, features and tolerances, feature validation, multiple viewpoints towards features, features and standardization, and features and languages. An overview of some academic feature-based design systems is provided. Future research issues in feature-based design are outlined. The conclusion is that feature-based design is still in its infancy, and that more research is needed for a better support of the design process and better integration with manufacturing, although major advances have already been made

Personalizing the design of computer‐based instruction to enhance learning

This paper reports two studies designed to investigate the effect on learning outcomes of matching individuals’ preferred cognitive styles to computer‐based instructional (CBI) material. Study 1 considered the styles individually as Verbalizer, Imager, Wholist and Analytic. Study 2 considered the bi‐dimensional nature of cognitive styles in order to assess the full ramification of cognitive styles on learning: Analytic/Imager, Analytic/ Verbalizer, Wholist/Imager and the Wholist/Verbalizer. The mix of images and text, the nature of the text material, use of advance organizers and proximity of information to facilitate meaningful connections between various pieces of information were some of the considerations in the design of the CBI material. In a quasi‐experimental format, students’ cognitive styles were analysed by Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) software. On the basis of the CSA result, the system defaulted students to either matched or mismatched CBI material by alternating between the two formats. The instructional material had a learning and a test phase. Learning outcome was tested on recall, labelling, explanation and problem‐solving tasks. Comparison of the matched and mismatched instruction did not indicate significant difference between the groups, but the consistently better performance by the matched group suggests potential for further investigations where the limitations cited in this paper are eliminated. The result did indicate a significant difference between the four cognitive styles with the Wholist/Verbalizer group performing better then all other cognitive styles. Analysing the difference between cognitive styles on individual test tasks indicated significant difference on recall, labelling and explanation, suggesting that certain test tasks may suit certain cognitive styles

A graph-based mathematical morphology reader

This survey paper aims at providing a "literary" anthology of mathematical morphology on graphs. It describes in the English language many ideas stemming from a large number of different papers, hence providing a unified view of an active and diverse field of research

User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment: Structured literature review

Purpose – Medical device users are one of the principal stakeholders of medical device technologies. User involvement in medical device technology development and assessment is central to meet their needs. Design/methodology/approach – A structured review of literature, published from 1980 to 2005 in peer-reviewed journals, was carried out from social science perspective to investigate the practice of user involvement in the development and assessment of medical device technologies. This was followed by qualitative thematic analysis. Findings – It is found that users of medical devices include clinicians, patients, carers and others. Different kinds of medical devices are developed and assessed by user involvement. The user involvement occurs at different stages of the medical device technology lifecycle and the degree of user involvement is in the order of design stage > testing and trials stage > deployment stage > concept stage. Methods most commonly used for capturing users’ perspectives are usability tests, interviews and questionnaire surveys. Research limitations/implications – We did not review the relevant literature published in engineering, medical and nursing fields, which might have been useful. Practical implications – Consideration of the users’ characteristics and the context of medical device use is critical for developing and assessing medical device technologies from users’ perspectives. Originality/value – This study shows that users of medical device technologies are not homogeneous but heterogeneous, in several aspects, and their needs, skills and working environments vary. This is important consideration for incorporating users’ perspectives in medical device technologies. Paper type: Literature review

Rich environments for active learning: a definition

Rich Environments for Active Learning, or REALs, are comprehensive instructional systems that evolve from and are consistent with constructivist philosophies and theories. To embody a constructivist view of learning, REALs: promote study and investigation within authentic contexts; encourage the growth of student responsibility, initiative, decision making, and intentional learning; cultivate collaboration among students and teachers; utilize dynamic, interdisciplinary, generative learning activities that promote higher-order thinking processes to help students develop rich and complex knowledge structures; and assess student progress in content and learning-to-learn within authentic contexts using realistic tasks and performances. REALs provide learning activities that engage students in a continuous collaborative process of building and reshaping understanding as a natural consequence of their experiences and interactions within learning environments that authentically reflect the world around them. In this way, REALs are a response to educational practices that promote the development of inert knowledge, such as conventional teacher-to-student knowledge-transfer activities. In this article, we describe and organize the shared elements of REALs, including the theoretical foundations and instructional strategies to provide a common ground for discussion. We compare existing assumptions underlying education with new assumptions that promote problem-solving and higher-level thinking. Next, we examine the theoretical foundation that supports these new assumptions. Finally, we describe how REALs promote these new assumptions within a constructivist framework, defining each REAL attribute and providing supporting examples of REAL strategies in action

From conditioning to learning communities: Implications of fifty years of research in e‐learning interaction design

This paper will consider e‐learning in terms of the underlying learning processes and interactions that are stimulated, supported or favoured by new media and the contexts or communities in which it is used. We will review and critique a selection of research and development from the past fifty years that has linked pedagogical and learning theory to the design of innovative e‐learning systems and activities, and discuss their implications. It will include approaches that are, essentially, behaviourist (Skinner and Gagné), cognitivist (Pask, Piaget and Papert), situated (Lave, Wenger and Seely‐Brown), socio‐constructivist (Vygotsky), socio‐cultural (Nardi and Engestrom) and community‐based (Wenger and Preece). Emerging from this review is the argument that effective e‐learning usually requires, or involves, high‐quality educational discourse, that leads to, at the least, improved knowledge, and at the best, conceptual development and improved understanding. To achieve this I argue that we need to adopt a more holistic approach to design that synthesizes features of the included approaches, leading to a framework that emphasizes the relationships between cognitive changes, dialogue processes and the communities, or contexts for e‐learning