Culture, Media & Deception Joey F. George Florida State University
advertisement
Culture, Media & Deception 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 AFOSR grant 2001-2006 Deception 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 here 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? Overall Research Question Do espoused cultural values affect deceptive behavior and deception detection accuracy within and between people of varying cultures using CMC? Literature Review Computer-mediated communication (CMC) Deception Culture CMC & Culture Deception & CMC Deception & Culture Literature Review Computer-mediated communication (CMC) ◦ Media Synchronicity Theory (Dennis, et al, 2008) Deception Culture CMC & Culture Deception & CMC Deception & Culture MST Literature Review Computer-mediated communication (CMC) Deception ◦ IDT (Buller & Burgoon, 1996) Culture CMC & Culture Deception & CMC Deception & Culture CONTEXT & RELATIONSHIP Interpersonal Deception Theory Sender Receiver Initial Message Interpretation & Judgment Perceived Success Behavioral Adaptation Behavioral Adaptation Discern Truth/ Deception Literature Review Computer-mediated communication (CMC) Deception Culture ◦ Theory of Cultural Differences (Hofstede, 1980) CMC & Culture Deception & CMC Deception & Culture Hofstede & Culture Four dimensions of national culture: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Collectivism Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Masculinity Literature Review Computer-mediated communication (CMC) Deception Culture CMC & Culture ◦ Media use varies by culture (e.g., Lee & Lee, 2003) Deception & CMC Deception & Culture Literature Review Computer-mediated communication (CMC) Deception Culture CMC & Culture Deception & CMC ◦ Differences in cues transmitted (see chart) Deception & Culture Deception & CMC Behavior Less talking time Fewer details More pressed lips Less plausibility Less logical structure More discrepancies and ambivalence Less verbal and vocal involvement Fewer illustrators Less verbal immediacy (all categories) Less verbal and vocal immediacy (impressions) More verbal and vocal uncertainty (impressions) More chin raises More word and phrase repetitions Less cooperative More negative statements and complaints Less facial pleasantness More nervous and tense (overall) More vocal tension Higher frequency, pitch More pupil dilation More fidgeting Fewer spontaneous corrections Less admitted lack of memory More related external associations Video Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Audio Detectable Detectable Written Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Detectable Literature Review Computer-mediated communication (CMC) Deception Culture CMC & Culture Deception & CMC Deception & Culture ◦ Some cultural differences discovered (see chart) 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 & Hong Kong Chinese Broadhurst 2005 Observers better able to identify deception in their second language than in native language Al-Simadi 2000 Jordan & Malaysia Individuals detected 52% of lies within their own cultures & 57% between cultures Bond & Atoum 2000 US, Jordan & India Individuals do not perceive those from other cultures as more deceptive than individuals from their own culture Study 1: Media selection Dissertation by Chris Furner, West Texas A&M University RQ: How does espoused national culture influence media choice in a deceptive context? 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) Research Procedures Questionnaires distributed to students at universities in US & PRC Each 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 choice Overall Choice Frequencies Option Choice Percent Face-to-face 185 40.7 Telephone 93 20.5 E-mail 54 11.9 Refuse 50 11.0 Memo 32 7.0 Letter 20 4.4 Videoconferencing 13 2.9 Voice-mail 4 0.9 IM 3 0.7 Choice by Group Option US Percent PRC Percent Refuse 44 16.9 6 3.1 Telephone 64 24.5 29 15.9 Memo 29 11.1 3 1.6 E-mail 28 10.7 26 13.5 Face-to-face 80 30.7 105 54.4 Letter 12 4.6 8 4.1 Videoconferencing 3 1.1 10 5.2 Voice-mail 1 0.4 3 1.6 IM 0 0.0 3 1.6 261 100 193 100 Totals Ranked Choices by Groups Option US Percent PRC Percent Face-to-face 80 30.7 105 54.4 Telephone 64 24.5 29 15.9 Refuse 44 16.9 Memo 29 11.1 E-mail 28 10.7 26 13.5 10 5.2 8 4.1 6 3.1 Videoconferencing Letter 12 4.6 Refuse Videoconferencing 3 1.1 Voice-mail 1 0.4 3 1.6 IM 0 0.0 3 1.6 3 1.6 193 100 Memo Totals 261 100 Edited Choice Frequencies Option US PRC Total Face-to-face 80 105 185 Telephone 64 29 93 E-mail 28 26 54 Memo 29 3 32 Letter 12 8 20 Totals 213 171 384 * Chi-square test is significant at the p < .000 level 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 voicebased 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) Study 2: Deception detection Dissertation by Carmen Lewis, now at Troy University Work 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? Experimental Design Experimental Procedures Phase 1 Conduct CMC Résumé Interviews Phase 2 Phase 3 Edit Tapes Test Deception Detection Ability Third-party observers watched the stimulus via a computer: 106 American, 104 Spanish The interview tapes were edited to separate honest and dishonest exchanges Each observer was asked to document where the lying occurred and what cues indicated that the interviewee was being dishonest Subjects: Students Honest and dishonest communication took place during the questioning of the résumé-based interview The interviewee was videotaped: 20 American, 20 Spanish 2 stimulus tapes 32 snippets per tape: 16 honest, 16 dishonest 8 audio/video, 8 audio, 8 video, 8 text Observer: Interviewee: 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 itself Audio 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. • Video Only 4Full A/V Examples The Questionnaire http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm =21uW_2f2xgGMHctt7u3JBDZw_3d_3d 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%) Veracity Judgment Success (cont’d) Culture Veracity Judgment Success Truths Deceptions U.S. Judge U.S. Snippet 9.83 (61%) 5.37 (34%) U.S. Judge Spain Snippet 10.69 (67%) 8.56 (54%) Spain Judge Spain Snippet 10.08 (63%) 8.85 (55%) Spain Judge U.S. Snippet 9.02 (56%) 7.18 (45%) Veracity Judgment Success (cont’d) Condition Mean SD % 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% 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 pleasantness Reliable Indicators of Deception (con’t) Both groups, verbal cues: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Changes in vocal pitch Repetition Illogical sentence structure Brief replies Pauses & hesitations 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 aversion 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
