Communication, compassion, and computers: Adolescents' and adults' evaluations of online and face‐to‐face deception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored Canadian adolescents', emergent adults', and adults' understandings of deception in computer mediated communication (CMC) compared to face to face (FtF). Participants between 13 and 50 years read vignettes of different types of questionable behaviour that occurred online or in real life, and were asked to judge whether deception was involved, and the acceptability of the behaviour. Age groups evaluated deception similarly; however, adolescents held slightly different views from adults about what constitutes deception, suggesting that the understanding of deception continues to develop into adulthood. Furthermore, CMC behaviour was rated as more deceptive than FtF in general, and participants scoring higher on compassion perceived vignettes to be more deceptive. This study is a step towards better understanding the relationships between perceptions of deception across adolescence into adulthood, mode of communication, and compassion, and may have implications for how adults communicate with youth about deception in CMC and FtF contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".