رفتار ساختاری اجتماعی از فریب در ارتباط به واسطه کامپیوتر
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|28878||2014||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7050 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Decision Support Systems, Volume 63, July 2014, Pages 95–103
Deception essentially takes place in social interaction. While deception has been studied from the perspective of interpersonal interaction, little is known about social structural characteristics of deceptive communication. To fill the knowledge gap, this research investigates deception behavior in computer mediated communication (CMC) via the lens of social structure by answering the questions of how one deceiver socially interacts with multiple receivers and what structural characteristics can be used to delineate deception in CMC. To this end, we first conceptualize deception in terms of social structure by drawing on the interpersonal deception and social network theories. We then propose a model of structural behaviors of deception in CMC that consists of three components: centrality, cohesion, and similarity, followed by an empirical evaluation of the model with real-world data collected from a game website. The findings of this study provide new evidence that deception is a strategic activity where the deceiver juggles between the dual goals of promoting his or her deceptive agenda and avoiding detection.
Computer mediated communication (CMC) provides social benefits for individuals and organizations to create, enhance, and re-discover social ties through interactive and transparent forms of communicating and collaborating with others . As the CMC technologies continuously evolve; however, online deception has become a growing threat to our society particularly due to the prevalence of online social networks, where a wealth of sensitive information could be harvested and exploited for cyber-attacks on a large number of receivers (e.g.,  and ). In addition, deception negatively impacts group decision making process through hampering the decision making ability of others . Therefore, there is an emerging need to understand deception behavior in the context of multiple receivers, which is instrumental to detecting deceptive information and uncovering malicious senders. Deception behavior has traditionally been grouped into two main categories: verbal (e.g., negative affect) and non-verbal behaviors (e.g., facial expression) ,  and . Verbal behavior is directly related to the spoken or written content and language  and , whereas nonverbal behavior “focuses on accessory features that are exhibited while a person is producing content” . Given that text is the primary modality available in CMC, verbal behavior has been the focus of extant online deception research. Despite the availability of nonverbal behavior in CMC, it has largely been under explored in the study of online deception. There has been very limited but promising evidence for the efficacy of non-verbal behavior in online deception detection . In the study, Zhou and Zhang explored and empirically confirmed keyboard, participatory, and sequential behaviors being new channels of nonverbal cues to online deception, and called for research into new sources of nonverbal behavior of deception in CMC. To answer the call, the current study examines deception behavior via the lens of social structure. This research looks into the context of CMC that involves one deceiver and multiple receivers. Deceptive communication encompasses back-and-forth interaction between a deceiver and receivers . Accordingly, deception can be viewed as a social phenomenon where individuals are connected through interactions and embedded in a structure of such relationships. The structure of ongoing social relations can be described by social structural behavior , and thus are related to deceptive communication and may serve as a new source of online deception behavior. There are two fundamental questions that must be answered when analyzing online deception from the social structure perspective. First, how can we conceptualize deceptive interactions as a social structure? Second, if social structure is a channel of deception behavior display, what kinds of social behaviors can be used to discriminate deceptive from truthful communication? To address the above questions, we first conceptualized deceptive communication as social relationships between deceivers and receivers, and then proposed a research model of social structural behaviors of deception in CMC by drawing on the underpinnings of the interpersonal deception theory and social network paradigms . The model predicts that deception has impact on the sender's centrality, cohesion, and similarity in a social structure. We further operationalized the selected social structural behaviors with social network measures , and empirically validated the research model using real-world data collected from a game website. Results support most of the hypothesized effects of deception on social structural behaviors in CMC. Hereafter deception in CMC and online deception are used interchangeably. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we build theoretical foundation for a social structural approach to deceptive interaction. Subsequently, we propose a research model of social structural behavior of deception. In Section 4, we introduce method design in detail, followed by data analyses and results reported in Section 5. In Section 6, we discuss the findings, implications and limitations of the research. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section 7.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Deception hampers the effective use of CMC for both personal and business purposes. In this article, building on the notion that deception is a type of social interaction, we proposed a social structural approach to investigating online deception behavior. Drawing from deception and social network theories, we developed a research model of structural behaviors of deception. The results of an empirical study largely supported the model, showing that deception influences three types of structural constructs — centrality, cohesion, and similarity. In addition, the impacts of deception on centrality varied depending on the type of centrality measures. Our findings provide new insights into deception behavior by looking into how deceivers position themselves in a network structure established through social interaction. Specifically, deceivers gain power over others in a network not by reaching out or getting publicity, but rather by the means of controlling resource accessible to others, gaining prominence, and forming supporting groups through trust building. These findings highlight that deception is a strategic activity where the deceivers manage the trade-off between persuasive and protective strategies in interaction with receivers. This research has important implications for both research and practice as online deception continues to evolve in the networked economy.