Culture, Media & Deception - PowerPoint Presentation

465 views
Uploaded On 2016-03-15

Culture, Media & Deception - PPT Presentation

Joey F George Florida State University Overview Justification Literature review Study 1 Media selection Study 2 Deception detection Conclusions History My interest in deceptive CMC goes back to about 1993 ID: 257161

amp detectable culture deception detectable amp deception culture cmc literature media deceptive communication audio computer review differences cultural cultures video cues behavior

Link:

Copy

Embed:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.docslides.com/embed/257161" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Culture, Media & Deception" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Culture, Media & Deception

Joey F. GeorgeFlorida State UniversitySlide2

Overview

JustificationLiterature reviewStudy 1: Media selectionStudy 2: Deception detection

ConclusionsSlide3

History

My interest in deceptive CMC goes back to about 1993AFOSR grant 2001-2006Deception literature had largely left unexplored issues dealing with CMC, groups & culture

Four studies investigating cultural differences, two of which were dissertations that will be reported on hereSlide4

Justification for Cultural Studies

With the rapid spread of CMC, it is now possible for billions of people all over the world to make video calls with each other via Skype for free

With increased (and low cost) exposure to people from many different cultures, it wouldn’t hurt to expand our understanding of other cultures

In any communication event, the possibility of deception is always present – What do we know about deceptive practices and attitudes towards deception in cultures other than our own?Slide5

Overall Research Question

Do espoused cultural values affect deceptive behavior and deception detection accuracy within and between people of varying cultures using CMC? Slide6

Literature Review

Computer-mediated communication (CMC)Deception

Culture

CMC & Culture

Deception & CMC

Deception & CultureSlide7

Literature Review

Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

Media Synchronicity Theory (Dennis, et al, 2008)

Deception

Culture

CMC & Culture

Deception & CMC

Deception & CultureSlide8

MSTSlide9

Literature Review

Computer-mediated communication (CMC)Deception

IDT (Buller & Burgoon, 1996)

Culture

CMC & Culture

Deception & CMC

Deception & CultureSlide10

TIME

Behavioral

Adaptation

Receiver

Interpretation

Judgment

Perceived

Success

Discern

Truth/

Deception

CONTEXT & RELATIONSHIP

Initial

Message

Behavioral

Adaptation

Sender

Interpersonal Deception TheorySlide11

Literature Review

Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

Deception

Culture

Theory of Cultural Differences (

Hofstede

, 1980)

CMC & Culture

Deception & CMC

Deception & CultureSlide12

Hofstede & Culture

Four dimensions of national culture:Collectivism

Power distance

Uncertainty avoidance

MasculinitySlide13

Literature Review

Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

Deception

Culture

CMC & Culture

Media use varies by culture (e.g., Lee & Lee, 2003)

Deception & CMC

Deception & CultureSlide14

Literature Review

Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

Deception

Culture

CMC & Culture

Deception & CMC

Differences in cues transmitted (see chart)

Deception & CultureSlide15

Deception & CMC

Behavior

Video

Audio

Written

Less talking time

Detectable

Fewer details

Detectable

More pressed lips

Detectable

Less plausibility

Detectable

Less logical structure

Detectable

More discrepancies and ambivalence

Detectable

Less verbal and vocal involvement

Detectable

Fewer illustrators

Detectable

Less verbal immediacy (all categories)

Detectable

Less verbal and vocal immediacy (impressions)

Detectable

More verbal and vocal uncertainty (impressions)

Detectable

More chin raises

Detectable

More word and phrase repetitions

Detectable

Less cooperative

Detectable

More negative statements and complaints

Detectable

Less facial pleasantness

Detectable

More nervous and tense (overall)

Detectable

More vocal tension

Detectable

Higher frequency, pitch

Detectable

More pupil dilation

Detectable

More fidgeting

Detectable

Fewer spontaneous corrections

Detectable

Less admitted lack of memory

Detectable

More related external associations

Detectable

DetectableSlide16

Literature Review

Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

Deception

Culture

CMC & Culture

Deception & CMC

Deception & Culture

Some cultural differences discovered (see chart)Slide17

Sample of Deception-Related Cultural Differences

Study

Countries

Select Findings

Triandis

et al 2001

Korea, Hong Kong, Greece,

Japan, US, Australia, Netherlands, Germany

Collectivist

groups more apt to deceive in business negotiations than individualist groups

Fu et al 2001

Canada

& Chinese

Canadians

considered lies concealing pro-social behavior to be lies, but Chinese did not & rated such behavior favorably

Cheng

Broadhurst

2005

Hong

Kong Chinese

Observers better able

to identify deception in their second language than in native language

Al-

Simadi

2000Jordan & MalaysiaIndividuals detected 52% of lies within their own cultures & 57% between culturesBond &

Atoum 2000US, Jordan & IndiaIndividuals do not perceive those from other cultures as more deceptive than individuals from their own cultureSlide18

Study 1: Media selection

Dissertation by Chris Furner, West Texas A&M UniversityRQ: How does espoused national culture influence media choice in a deceptive context?Slide19

Research Design

Created 4 scenarios, which varied by:Familiarity (stranger or friend)

Severity of the situation (trivial or serious)

Embedded scenarios in questionnaires, which also included demographic and other items

Questionnaire translated into Mandarin & back to English; discrepancies addressed

Distributed to 261 American students and 194 Chinese students (PRC)Slide20

Research Procedures

Questionnaires distributed to students at universities in US & PRCEach questionnaire contained 1 of the 4 scenarios

In each scenario, boss asks employee to lie

Respondent asked to choose one medium for the deceptive task

Respondent asked to give a reason for the choiceSlide21

Overall Choice Frequencies

Option

Choice

Percent

Face-to-face

185

40.7

Telephone

20.5

E-mail

11.9

Refuse

11.0

Memo

7.0

Letter

4.4

Videoconferencing

2.9

Voice-mail40.9

IM30.7Slide22

Choice by Group

Option

Percent

PRC

Percent

Refuse

16.9

3.1

Telephone

24.5

15.9

Memo

11.1

1.6

E-mail

10.7

13.5Face-to-face80

30.710554.4Letter124.6

84.1Videoconferencing31.1105.2Voice-mail1

0.43

1.6IM00.03

1.6Totals261100193100Slide23

Ranked Choices by Groups

Option

Percent

PRC

Percent

Face-to-face

30.7

105

54.4

Telephone

24.5

15.9

Refuse

16.9

Memo

11.1

E-mail

10.7

13.5Videoconferencing105.2

Letter124.684.1Refuse6

3.1Videoconferencing3

1.1Voice-mail1

0.431.6IM00.0

31.6Memo31.6

Totals261100193100Slide24

Edited Choice Frequencies

Option

PRC

Total

Face-to-face

105

185

Telephone

E-mail

Memo

Letter

Totals213171

384* Chi-square test is significant at the p < .000 levelSlide25

Findings by Cultural Characteristic

Individuals who scored highly on espoused collectivism preferred to lie using text-based media (F (3, 370) = 2.811, p=0.039)

Individuals who scored highly on espoused power distance preferred to lie using voice-based media (F (3, 370) = 3.01, p=0.030)

Individuals who scored highly on espoused masculinity preferred to use visual media when lying (F (3, 370) = 7.683, p < 0.001)Slide26

Study 2: Deception detection

Dissertation by Carmen Lewis, now at Troy UniversityWork supported by Gabe Giordano, who was at IESE in Barcelona at the time data were collected, & who is now at Miami University

RQ1: To what extent does CMC affect deceptive behavior and deception detection?

RQ2: How do espoused cultural values affect deceptive behavior and deception detection accuracy within and between people of varying cultures using CMC?Slide27

Experimental DesignSlide28

Experimental Procedures

Phase 1

Conduct CMC Résumé Interviews

Subjects: Students

Honest and dishonest communication took place during the questioning of the résumé-

based interview

The interviewee was videotaped:

20 American, 20 Spanish

Phase 2

Edit Tapes

The interview tapes were edited to separate honest and dishonest exchanges

stimulus tapes

32 snippets per tape:

16 honest, 16 dishonest

8 audio/video, 8 audio, 8 video, 8 text

Phase 3

Test Deception Detection Ability

Third-party observers watched the stimulus via a computer:

106 American, 104 Spanish

Each observer was asked to document where the lying occurred and what cues indicated that the interviewee was being dishonest

Observer:

Interviewee:Slide29

The Stimulus “Reel”

Part of what the participants saw

Examples to show you:

One audio

One text

One video only

4 audio/visual examples:

2 American: one honest, one not

2 Spanish: one honest, one not

Part of the questionnaire itselfSlide30

AudioSlide31

Text

Interviewer: How would this scholarship help you in any way?

Interviewee: Umm, the scholarship would really help me out with umm … Well I am actually a student completely umm financially independent from my parents. So, the scholarship would help me with uh finishing up paying my tuition, my books, and my living expenses here on campus.

Interviewer: And what’s your year in college?

Interviewee: I’m a senior.Slide32

Video OnlySlide33

4Full A/V ExamplesSlide34

The Questionnaire

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=21uW_2f2xgGMHctt7u3JBDZw_3d_3dSlide35

Some Preliminary Findings:

Veracity Judgment Success

Culture of the Judge

Culture of the Interviewee

U.S.

Spain

U.S.

15.15

(47%)

19.23 (60%)

Spain

16.37 (51%)

18.92 (59%)Slide36

Veracity Judgment Success

(cont’d)

Culture

Veracity Judgment Success

Truths

Deceptions

U.S. Judge

9.83

(61%)

5.37 (34%)

U.S. Snippet

U.S. Judge

10.69 (67%)

8.56 (54%)

Spain Snippet

Spain Judge

10.08 (63%)

8.85 (55%)

Spain Snippet

Spain Judge

9.02 (56%)

7.18 (45%)

U.S. SnippetSlide37

Veracity Judgment Success

(cont’d)

Condition

Mean

% Correct

Audio and Video

4.58

1.38

57%

Audio Only

4.48

1.32

56%

Text-Based

4.35

1.40

54%

Video Only

4.00

1.48

50%Slide38

Preliminary Findings Regarding Reliable Indicators of Deception

Both groups, visual cues:

Adaptors (excessive hand movements, fidgeting)

Spanish interview participants, visual cues:

Smiling

Swallowing more strongly than usual

Pressed lips

American interview participants, visual cues:

Less facial pleasantnessSlide39

Reliable Indicators of Deception

(

con’t

)

Both groups, verbal cues:

Changes in vocal pitch

Repetition

Illogical sentence structure

Brief replies

Pauses & hesitationsSlide40

Reliable Indicators of Deception

(

con’t

)

Easy cues for all judges to detect:

Pauses & hesitations

Changes in vocal pitch

One incorrect cue commonly cited:

Gaze aversionSlide41

Concluding Remarks

There are differences in deceptive behavior and these differences do seem to have some impact on deception detection

However, there is still much to learn about these differences, especially at the intersection of culture, deception & CMC

Culture, Media & Deception - PowerPoint Presentation

Culture, Media & Deception - PPT Presentation

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Related Contents