Verbal Disagreement In Computer

Discussions involving co-fraud and differences of opinion also offer unique possibilities, as this situation is one where the credibility objective is most threatened, namely that fraudsters must be particularly adapted to the behaviour of their partners. As a result, it is in these conversations that the coordination of behaviours will be most marked, rather than the most affected. There is some support for this prediction based on the recent work of [52]. In their study, behavioural coordination between fraudsters and a Confederate partner was assessed by a group of human advisors who, among other things, assessed a general «figure» of perceived timing. What is critical is that the impressions of behavioral coordination were strongest in deception in a conflictual versus neutral phase of interaction. Although the conditions of [52] differ more from our current approach, it opens the possibility that coordination of behaviours will also be expressed in current analyses during deception and disagreement/conflict. One aspect of our research, which distinguishes them from related work, is the study of several types of coordination with the statistical methods of WLCC and CRQA at different temporal and spatial scales. In the case of WLCC, for example, coupled sequences of common head movements were identified as highly synchronized over minimal time delays (less than 1000 ms). This result is remarkable because traditional models of information transmission assume the need for a mismatch between the perception of a behaviour and the reaction to it, because the information must be deciphered and coded. With little evidence of such a delay, our results support the idea of «ultra-fast» synergistic cognition [59]. In other words, the responsiveness of the interlocutors between them is very proactive, so that the speakers/listeners are quickly aligned in a single functional unit [18, 86-88]. Similarly, the fact that this was most visible in dissenting conversations with differences of opinion highlights a greater harmony between the interlocutors, which may have been particularly marked.

It becomes more and more open to how behavioral coordination is expressed when deception is introduced. On one level, fraudsters must continue the normal work of working with their interlocutors to establish a common meaning, but at the same time they must face a number of cognitive challenges related to deception: that is, the inhibition of the predation of truth [46-47], cognitive control in the delineation of the truth of lies [48] and the generating of imaginary events [49]. As a result, deception, like disagreements, can be considered embarrassing. Moreover, in a situation where a conversation involves both deception and disagreement, a situation of maximum disturbance may be most detrimental to the coordination of behaviors. The experimenter then entered the private space of the DA, who was informed that she had been chosen to discuss a topic with the naïve participant, adopting an opinion contrary to her real convictions. In the condition of disagreement, we chose the theme on which the participants had initially shared a similar view.