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-

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

A Survey on Continuous Time Computations

We provide an overview of theories of continuous time computation. These theories allow us to understand both the hardness of questions related to continuous time dynamical systems and the computational power of continuous time analog models. We survey the existing models, summarizing results, and point to relevant references in the literature

Technology Policy, Gender, and Cyberspace

Event based sampling occurs when the time instants are measured everytime the amplitude passes certain pre-defined levels. This is in contrast with classical signal processing where the amplitude is measured at regular time intervals. The signal processing problem is to separate the signal component from noise in both amplitude and time domains. Event based sampling occurs in a variety of applications. The purpose here is to explain the new types of signal processing problems that occur, and identify the need for processing in both the time and event domains. We focus on rotating axles, where amplitude disturbances are caused by vibrations and time disturbances from measurement equipment. As one application, we examine tire pressure monitoring in cars where suppression of time disturbance is of utmost importance

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

Student questioning : a componential analysis

This article reviews the literature on student questioning, organized through a modified version of Dillon's (1988a, 1990) componential model of questioning. Special attention is given to the properties of assumptions, questions, and answers. Each of these main elements are the result of certain actions of the questioner, which are described. Within this framework a variety of aspects of questioning are highlighted. One focus of the article is individual differences in question asking. The complex interactions between students' personal characteristics, social factors, and questioning are examined. In addition, a number of important but neglected topics for research are identified. Together, the views that are presented should deepen our understanding of student questioning