Free Sample: Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication paper example for writing essay

Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication - Essay Example

Also research on factors that affect deception and its detection such as sensation seeking, Internet dependency, synchronous versus asynchronous communication, deception cues, and family online communication are examined. It is found that sensation seeking and Internet dependency both increase deceptive behavior online, (Lu, 2008). Deception is less detected in synchronous computer-mediated communication that asynchronous, (Burgeon, Chem. & Twitchier, 2010).

Deception cues often go unnoticed in online shopping leading to lack of deception detection, (Grazing, 2004). Having family interaction online lessens deceptive behavior but increases discomfort, (Goby, 2011). Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication When it comes to online communication deception is a key issue. Deception online consists of identity deception, mimicking of data and processes, insincere responses, false excuses and promises, and fraud, (Rowe).

Identity deception involves lies of who the person really is or even what they are like and often occurs in online chat rooms, videotapes, forums, and discussion groups. Mimicking of data and processes consists of fake websites, bills and emails as well as hijacking of websites and personal profiles. Insincere responses, known by today’s youth as “trolling,” involves exaggerating responses, posturing, replacing actual emotions with false ones in responses, or purposely responding in a manner that is meant to engage a response in the receiver.

False excuses and promises are commonly used and difficult to identify in interpersonal computer-mediated communication but is also present publicly through false advertisements and other similar media. Fraud is the most well-known and feared source of deception for computer users since it often is for criminal ends and comes in many forms, such as computer viruses, credit card fraud, fake investments or charities and spam email.

These forms of deception occur for several reasons all involving personal gain, to avoid punishment, release aggression, create a sense of power, wish fulfillment, assist own or other’s self-deception, help a loved one, resolve role-conflict or Just for plain enjoyment, (Rowe). People are found to be more susceptible to deception online since computer-mediated communication lacks verbal cues and social constraints that are present in face-to-face communication. Lu, (2008) found a positive correlation between high sensation seeking and engaging in deceptive behaviors online as well as Internet dependency r addiction.

The rationale behind this claim is that Internet dependents receive arousal from interacting with others online which satisfies their sensation seeking needs of novelty, complexity, thrill and adventure but the satisfaction doesn’t last and creates the intention to use deception to satisfy the sensation seeking craving. This result was found by a survey of 675 college students in Taiwan, mean age of 20. 3 years. The survey consisted three questionnaires that measured engagement in online interpersonal deception, sensation seeking and Internet dependency.

The information gathered was analyzed via a t-Test for independent samples, p < . 05, (Lu, 2008). The results supported the two hypotheses that both high sensation seekers and people with high levels of Internet dependency are more likely that their counter parts to engage in interpersonal deception online. Burgoon, Chen and Twitchell (2010) examined if there was a difference between synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication in relation to communication processes, credibility assessments, deception detection and team performance.

They did this by adhering 126 college students and randomly assigning them to pairs. Then they randomly assigned the people in each pair as A or B, and randomly assigned half of the Ass to be the deceivers. The pairs were anonymous, none knew who their partner was. All participants were given questionnaires before and after the study. The experiment lasted 5 days so that there wasn’t a time crunch for the asynchronous communication. All participants were told to imagine they were in a broken down Jeep in the middle of the desert.

They were given information about desert survival static and asked to complete the Desert Survival Program online, (Burgeon, Chem. & Twitchier, 2010). The ADS asks the participant to rank 12 items for their survival value. The participants are to first rank each item individually and post the reason for their ranking choice. Then discuss with their partner via synchronous or asynchronous text. The deceiver were given special instructions without the other participants knowledge to actively deceive their partners by giving them misleading and invalid information and convince their partners to do the opposite of what is correct.

The exults found synchronous computer-mediated communication increased team performance, communication and the sense of credibility compared to asynchronous. Yet when it came to deception the type of communication had little effect. Interactivity was equally affected by deception for both asynchronous and synchronous communication. The timeliness neither aided nor hindered deceivers in appearing involved and mutual in computer-mediated communication. Deception in team performance had a negative effect, resulted in participants perceiving the deceivers as more credible than the truth tellers.

The deceivers were successful at portraying themselves as sociable, composed and dominant. Due to this the deceivers were able to negatively affect decision-making, (Burgeon, Chem. & Twitchier, 2010). Another factor that affects online deception is the presence of family in the online interactions. Goby (2011) showed that people perceived identity deception as impossible to do with out consequence of family member and even without consequence they recognized it as immoral.

This was done by analyzing 48 college students age 20-24 years in five sessions of a supervised online focus group. There was 7-10 students in each focus groups and they were asked to discuss their opinions and experience with using computer-mediated communication or CM with their parents and/or siblings, if using CM has ever impacted their relationship with a sibling or parent, how does CM compare to face to face communication with their parents or siblings, has CM use ever created stress with a parent or sibling, and how suitable is CM for parents or siblings? Goby, 2011). Deep analysis of the text in the focus group found that international interaction through CM was perceived as inappropriate, lead to conflicts between online identity and behavior, and created a feeling of lack of control over their power to self-disclose. The generation gap was also perceived as problematic and had effect on the perceived nature of offline family relationships. Deception was perceived as more difficult to do with family CM interactions, but created a discomfort for the participants when online communities and family communities mix.

Deception detection online is more difficult than in person and there are factors that improve and hinder deception detection online. Grazing (2004) examined these factors of people’s ability to detect deception on online shopping websites. Eighty college students who were very knowledgeable of Internet usage and online shopping were chosen randomly split into two groups. They were given a back story that their friend Tom’s laptop was stolen so he went online and found a site were he can buy a used laptop.

He isn’t sure if the site is safe so he want the participants to give him a second opinion of the site and if it is safe to go ahead and use his credit card to buy it for him. Half of the participant visit the actual website and half visit an identical website that has been manipulated with deception cue. The deception cues are a forged seal of approval, forged quotes from professional magazines, a too-good-to-be-true warranty, a false store location, website size was very inflated, sales were unrealistic, and the testimonials were all extremely positive.

They found that priming subjects had a weak positive effect on detecting deception. Affirming assurance cues and discounting trust cues were found to facilitate detection, while the opposite led to failed deception detection. Yet on average subjects did not differentiate between the clean and deceptive sites, which show how susceptible people are to deception online. Therefore, although there are many types of deception in computer-mediated communication the factors in detecting it are minimal and not guaranteed to work.