The Role of Power and Negotiation in Online Deception

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to advance theoretical understanding of the important role of both power and negotiation during online deception. By so doing, the paper provides insight into the relationship between perpetrator and victim in Internet fraud. The growing prevalence of Internet Fraud continues to be a burden to both society and individuals. In an attempt to better understand Internet fraud and online deception, this article attempts to build an interactive model, based upon the dimensions of power and negotiation from the management and psychology literature. Using the model presented, the article examines the effects of the Internet on the communication process that takes place between perpetrator and victim. Finally, the article discusses some of the major tactics employed to appeal to each power type in predominant fraud forms, as well exploring future types of fraud.

The Effects of Media Capabilities on the Rationalization of Online Consumer Fraud

“…The appropriation of technology for fraud remains underexplored in current research. Given the increasing occurrence of e-commerce fraud (IC3, 2015), an improved understanding of how communication tools affect fraudulent behaviors is necessary (Albrecht et al, 2006). The findings described in this research address these problems by identifying those media capabilities that are germane to the act of fraud.…”

“…Consumer fraud is a prolific and widespread problem for Internet-based commerce (Albrecht, Albrecht, Wareham, & Fox, 2006). Since 2010, the Internet Crime Complaints Center has reported average annual losses nearing $1 billion (IC3, 2015).…”

“…Since 2010, the Internet Crime Complaints Center has reported average annual losses nearing $1 billion (IC3, 2015). These schemes represent a growing concern because many of the same technology-mediated business practices that enable online commerce also enable online consumer fraud (Albrecht et al, 2006;Grazioli & Jarvenpaa, 2000). Although research has explored how computermediation affects deception detection (Carlson, George, Burgoon, Adkins, & White, 2004;Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, & Vogel, 1991;George, Carlson, & Valacich, capabilities that affect communication performance (Dennis et al, 2008); (2) during deceptive communications cues of deceit are leaked into conversation affecting the success of subsequent deception (Ekman, 1997;Buller & Burgoon, 1996;George et al, 2013); (3) a reduced sense of social presence can foster antisocial behaviors (Bente, Rüggenberg, Krämer, & Eschenburg, 2008;Chatterjee, Sarker, & Valacich, 2015); and (4) individuals rationalize fraudulent behaviors before enactment (Rest, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999;Murphy & Dacin, 2011).…”

The effects of technology on interpersonal fraud

“…The proposed model, displayed in Figure 3, combines the convenience and parsimony of the fraud triangle with the descriptive power and insights of the structured behavioral models of technology adoption and computer-mediated deception. Thus, by combining models that explore how deception and trust are exploited during an exchange (Grazioli and Jarvenpaa, 2000;Pavlou, 2003;Rofiq and Mula, 2010) with models that describe the necessary antecedents of fraudulent behaviors (Buchan, 2005;Carpenter and Reimers, 2005;Chang, 1998;Cohen et al, 2010) and models that describe how technological capabilities influence deceitful exchanges (Albrecht et al, 2007;, a descriptive and useful convergent model emerges. This approach can be used to parse out how and why different types of media with distinct characteristics have unique influences on whether deceptive actions are recognized (Burgoon et al, 2003).…”

“…Something is only useful if the user associates utility with the outcome, and usefulness lies within the concept of motivation. On occasion, the sense of power established through the successful execution of fraud provides the perpetrator feelings of dominance or mastery (Albrecht et al, 2007). Thus, the accumulation of wealth and ego are both key drivers motivating most fraudulent exchanges (Dorminey et al, 2012).…”