Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Michael Woodworth

dblp:82/3751 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
computer-mediated communication
0.112010
Warrants and deception in computer mediated communication · CSCW 2010
Collaborative and social computing › computer-mediated communication
deception
0.112010
Warrants and deception in computer mediated communication · CSCW 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Warrants and deception in computer mediated communication
abstract
This article explores the operation of warrants, connections between online and real-world identities, on deceptive behavior in computer-mediated communication. A survey of 132 participants assessed three types of warrants (the use of a real name, a photo, and the presence of real-world acquaintances) in five different media: IM, Forums, Chat, Social Networking Sites (SNS) and Email. The effect of warrants on lies about demographic information (e.g., age, gender, education, etc.), one's interests (e.g., religion, music preferences, etc.), and the seriousness of lies was assessed. Overall, deception was observed most frequently in Chat and least often in SNS and Email. The relationship between warrants and deception was negative and linear, with warrants suppressing the frequency and seriousness of deception regardless of medium, although real-world acquaintances were especially powerful in constraining deception in SNS and emails.
Darcy Warkentin, Michael Woodworth, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Nicole Cormier
CSCW2