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-

Bibliometric studies on single journals: a review

This paper covers a total of 82 bibliometric studies on single journals (62 studies cover unique titles) published between 1998 and 2008 grouped into the following fields; Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (12 items); Medical and Health Sciences (19 items); Sciences and Technology (30 items) and Library and Information Sciences (21 items). Under each field the studies are described in accordance to their geographical location in the following order, United Kingdom, United States and Americana, Europe, Asia (India, Africa and Malaysia). For each study, elements described are (a) the journal’s publication characteristics and indexation information; (b) the objectives; (c) the sampling and bibliometric measures used; and (d) the results observed. A list of journal titles studied is appended. The results show that (a)bibliometric studies cover journals in various fields; (b) there are several revisits of some journals which are considered important; (c) Asian and African contributions is high (41.4 of total studies; 43.5 covering unique titles), United States (30.4 of total; 31.0 on unique titles), Europe (18.2 of total and 14.5 on unique titles) and the United Kingdom (10 of total and 11 on unique titles); (d) a high number of bibliometrists are Indians and as such coverage of Indian journals is high (28 of total studies; 30.6 of unique titles); and (e) the quality of the journals and their importance either nationally or internationally are inferred from their indexation status

Colour Constancy: Biologically-inspired Contrast Variant Pooling Mechanism

Pooling is a ubiquitous operation in image processing algorithms that allows for higher-level processes to collect relevant low-level features from a region of interest. Currently, max-pooling is one of the most commonly used operators in the computational literature. However, it can lack robustness to outliers due to the fact that it relies merely on the peak of a function. Pooling mechanisms are also present in the primate visual cortex where neurons of higher cortical areas pool signals from lower ones. The receptive fields of these neurons have been shown to vary according to the contrast by aggregating signals over a larger region in the presence of low contrast stimuli. We hypothesise that this contrast-variant-pooling mechanism can address some of the shortcomings of max-pooling. We modelled this contrast variation through a histogram clipping in which the percentage of pooled signal is inversely proportional to the local contrast of an image. We tested our hypothesis by applying it to the phenomenon of colour constancy where a number of popular algorithms utilise a max-pooling step (e.g. White-Patch, Grey-Edge and Double-Opponency). For each of these methods, we investigated the consequences of replacing their original max-pooling by the proposed contrast-variant-pooling. Our experiments on three colour constancy benchmark datasets suggest that previous results can significantly improve by adopting a contrast-variant-pooling mechanism

A History of Cluster Analysis Using the Classification Society's Bibliography Over Four Decades

The Classification Literature Automated Search Service, an annual bibliography based on citation of one or more of a set of around 80 book or journal publications, ran from 1972 to 2012. We analyze here the years 1994 to 2011. The Classification Society's Service, as it was termed, has been produced by the Classification Society. In earlier decades it was distributed as a diskette or CD with the Journal of Classification. Among our findings are the following: an enormous increase in scholarly production post approximately 2000; a very major increase in quantity, coupled with work in different disciplines, from approximately 2004; and a major shift also from cluster analysis in earlier times having mathematics and psychology as disciplines of the journals published in, and affiliations of authors, contrasted with, in more recent times, a "centre of gravity" in management and engineering.Comment: 23 pages, 9 figure

Security in Wireless Sensor Networks: Issues and Challenges

Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is an emerging technology that shows great promise for various futuristic applications both for mass public and military. The sensing technology combined with processing power and wireless communication makes it lucrative for being exploited in abundance in future. The inclusion of wireless communication technology also incurs various types of security threats. The intent of this paper is to investigate the security related issues and challenges in wireless sensor networks. We identify the security threats, review proposed security mechanisms for wireless sensor networks. We also discuss the holistic view of security for ensuring layered and robust security in wireless sensor networks.Comment: 6 page

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