Friday, December 01, 2006

Deception and the Evolution of Media: A Historical Analysis

Shane, Amy, and Kristen's Project
We looked at deception and the evolution of media and why media persist, despite deception.
Any comments would be great!

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Presentation: Alex and Amanda

It was on deception in dating profile pictures. Please leave us your feedback on our presentation.

As Far as I Could Throw Him: The Factors that Contribute to Suspicion -Nikki

Please leave comments or suggestions! Thanks for everything this semester. I had a great time with all of you...trust me ;).

-Nikki

Lies in a Conversation - Barrett & Josh

Where do lies occur in a conversation?

Comments, suggestions, and criticisms are all welcome.

Thanks!
Barrett & Josh

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Digital Deception



Nice to Meet You?
How do you behave in initial interactions?
Comments and questions about my presentation are welcome!
~Erica

Lying to Your Facebook



How honest is your Facebook profile?
Any suggestions for the paper are welcome. Thanks.

- Corey, Robin, & Jenna

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Presentation - Lauren, Cameron, Brad

Beliefs about Online Deception. Please tell us what you thought. You may download the presentation at http://drbeagle.com/445/baod.pdf

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

I know Something You Don’t Know

Presentation-wise, I thought you did a good job. You didn’t rush through your points, and you were very clear and logical in your progression. I liked your use of an audience member for analysis, since it made the presentation very engaging. I thought there was a lot of text in the presentation, so it could’ve benefited from some alternate visuals like more pictures, illustrations or graphics; especially since you dealt with an idea that could have been displayed easily through visual examples. I thought you could’ve used an overview of your points at times (or how they relate to deception/Nyberg/etc…) and that might’ve been reading from your slides a bit too, but otherwise, I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation.

You deal with a very interesting idea that I felt engaged in immediately. Your content was clear, and I liked how you explained the premise of asymmetric information, your own hypotheses, and then the strategies used in practice and the results for your hypotheses. It would’ve been exciting (though totally unnecessary) to see how people get around the problem of asymmetric information instead of just how they use it. It also would’ve been interesting to see what people think about in terms of “what’s important for deception” (as discussed in class, ie. liking a person). In terms of a confederate,I think this is a great idea. It should be a few confederates (consisting of various characteristics to create more genrealizable results), but controlling for the information known is a good idea because it eliminates different reactions to profile length, profile details (in terms of type of details like personal info categories and basic info categories and specificity of info, like “I like dogs” and “I enjoy household animals”), and controls for reactions by confederates (of course).

Deception in Photos

You did a great job with your presentation. In terms of the non-content aspect, I really liked that you had a brief overview of your points and explained how they fit together logically to start the presentation. I liked that you used varying media in the presentation, as well as numerous slides to demonstrate each point. You also did not read off your slides, using them only for the audience’s reference, and this helped make your speech engaging. Furthermore, I felt that you did an excellent job speaking clearly, and (changing gears here) connecting your points logically and in an easy way to follow. Lastly, I loved your use of the graphic Jeff pointed out in class. Using a graphic as a means to explain a theoretical point was a great idea that my group will definitely use as well, thanks in part to your group’s pioneering ways!

In terms of content, I thought your presentation was also good. You did a fine job of explaining your main idea. You then did a great job of expanding upon this idea by relating it to Nyberg in interesting ways. You examples were concise and well-illustrated. I thought someone brought up a great point in class that you could have discussed the truth bias and expectations of deception with relation to your project, though this is an extra step for sure. Also, I liked how you critically analyzed the theories you used and your own conclusions. You did a rather effective job at this I might add, though I think you could’ve shown the inherent problems in comparing text-based theory to graphics.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Comments for our presentation

Hi guys,


Just in case you forgot, our presentation was about applying Nyberg's framework to pictures. We discussed how the different ways of showing and hiding can be applied to pictures.


Thanks for your comments!

Nicole and Kaitlin

Comments for Kaitlin and Nicole

All good things to say about you two.

My Presentation

Here's a little post so that you all can comment about my presentation.

A few things I'm thinking about and would love feedback on:
-Should I use a confederate as person B in the experiment? I have many hesitations, but I know there would be benefits too.
-Should I use some kind of task for their conversation? Would an introduction/biographical task work?
Or is there anything else important I didn't cover?

Thanks!

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Alex and Amanda's Paper Foundation

Here is a concise summary of our work.

Research Question
1) What individual factors predict lies in the main profile picture?
a. Computer Experience
b. Self-perceived physical attractiveness
c. Gender
d. Age
e. Anticipation of Future Interaction
2) From here we will be considering how each of these five factors effects:
a. Frequency of Deception (ie. Do they lie or not?)
b. Level of Deception (We’re deciding now in our methodologies what scale to use. Originally we were considering if the level of deception was subtle, exaggerated, or outright.)

Hypotheses
H1: Individuals that have more computer experience will be more likely to deceive in their photo than individuals with less computer experience.
Sources:
-Ellison
-Dutton
-Mahar, Henderson, and Keane
-Wade

H2: Individuals with lower self-perceived attractiveness will be more likely to deceive in their photo than individuals with higher self-perceived attractiveness.
Sources:
-Higgins
-Elliott
-Doherty and Schlenker

H3: Women will be more likely to deceive in photo than men.
Sources:
-Polce-Lynch
-McAuley, Bane, Mihalko
-Martin, Leary, Rejeski
-Adamson, Doud Cralli

H4: Older people will be more likely than younger people to deceive in their photo.
Sources:
-Martin, Leary, Rejeski
-Coupland
-Sousa Campos

H5: Individuals that anticipate a future FtF interaction will be less likely to deceive in their online profile picture.
Sources:
-Walther
-Kellerman

Our biggest dilemma in the first assignment was that we took what Jeff calls, a lot of “garden paths.” We spent last week truly going through all of the literature and honing our question and finding theory to point us in the direction of these hypotheses.
This week we will be working on our methodologies for our proposed study.