Abstract
Uncertainty can be viewed as a mechanism by which researchers can examine speaker commitment in both bona-fide and deceptive communication. We apply the examination of varying levels of uncertainty in text to the online grooming domain. Within online grooming literature, researchers use data sets consisting of real victims, vigilantes, and law enforcement officers. However, psychology researchers question whether internet stings involving law enforcement officers (LEO) and vigilantes can be used to approximate the grooming process of children. In this paper, we examine differences between the three groups within the stages of the grooming process. We approach the problem through the lens of uncertainty language. We find the use of uncertain language differs the most between victims, vigilantes, and LEO in the meeting, sexual, and risk assessment stages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aitken, S., Gaskell, D., Hodkinson, A.: Online sexual grooming: exploratory comparison of themes arising from male offenders’ communications with male victims compared to female victims. Deviant Behav. 39(9), 1170–1190 (2018)
Beauregard, E., Leclerc, B., Lussier, P.: Decision making in the crime commission process: comparing rapists, child molesters, and victim-crossover sex offenders. Crim. Justice Behav. 39(10), 1275–1295 (2012)
Black, P.J., Wollis, M., Woodworth, M., Hancock, J.T.: A linguistic analysis of grooming strategies of online child sex offenders: implications for our understanding of predatory sexual behavior in an increasingly computer-mediated world. Child Abuse Neglect 44, 140–149 (2015)
Briggs, P., Simon, W.T., Simonsen, S.: An exploratory study of internet-initiated sexual offenses and the chat room sex offender: has the internet enabled a new typology of sex offender? Sex. Abuse 23(1), 72–91 (2011)
Calderon, S., Mac Giolla, E., Granhag, P.A., Ask, K.: Do true and false intentions differ in level of abstraction? A test of construal level theory in deception contexts. Front. Psychol. 8, 2037 (2017)
DeHart, D., Dwyer, G., Seto, M.C., Moran, R., Letourneau, E., Schwarz-Watts, D.: Internet sexual solicitation of children: a proposed typology of offenders based on their chats, e-mails, and social network posts. J. Sex. Aggress. 23(1), 77–89 (2017)
van Gijn-Grosvenor, E.L., Lamb, M.E.: Behavioural differences between online sexual groomers approaching boys and girls. J. Child Sex. Abuse 25(5), 577–596 (2016)
Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P., Sureka, A.: Characterizing pedophile conversations on the internet using online grooming. arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.4324 (2012)
Holmes, J.: Expressing doubt and certainty in English. Reg. Lang. Cent. J. 13(2), 9–28 (1982)
Hovy, E., Lavid, J.: Towards a ‘science’ of corpus annotation: a new methodological challenge for corpus linguistics. Int. J. Transl. 22(1), 13–36 (2010)
Kloess, J.A., Seymour-Smith, S., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C.E., Long, M.L., Shipley, D., Beech, A.R.: A qualitative analysis of offenders’ modus operandi in sexually exploitative interactions with children online. Sex. Abuse 29(6), 563–591 (2017)
Liu, C., Tseng, M.Y.: Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: a comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research. Engl. Specif. Purp. 61, 1–16 (2021)
O’Connell, R.: A typology of child cybers exploitation and online grooming practices. Cyberspace Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire (2003)
Prabhakaran, V., Ganeshkumar, P., Rambow, O.: Author commitment and social power: automatic belief tagging to infer the social context of interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06016 (2018)
Prokofieva, A., Hirschberg, J.: Hedging and speaker commitment. In: 5th International Workshop on Emotion, Social Signals, Sentiment & Linked Open Data, Reykjavik, Iceland (2014)
Ringenberg, T.R., Seigfried-Spellar, K.C., Rayz, J.T.: Using fuzzy sets to assess differences in online grooming conversations with victims, decoys, and law enforcement. In: 2020 Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS) (2020)
Rubin, V.L.: Identifying certainty in texts. Doctoral thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY (2006)
Rubin, V.L.: Epistemic modality: from uncertainty to certainty in the context of information seeking as interactions with texts. Inf. Process. Manag. 46(5), 533–540 (2010)
Sanchez, L.M.: Certainty assessment in informal language, p. 253 (2015)
Sanchez, L.M., Vogel, C.: A hedging annotation scheme focused on epistemic phrases for informal language. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Models for Modality Annotation (2015)
SaurÃ, R., Pustejovsky, J.: Are you sure that this happened? Assessing the factuality degree of events in text. Comput. Linguist. 38(2), 261–299 (2012)
Wortley, R., Leclerc, B., Reynald, D.M., Smallbone, S.: What deters child sex offenders? A comparison between completed and noncompleted offenses. J. Interpers. Violence 34(20), 4303–4327 (2019)
Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets and information granularity. Adv. Fuzzy Set Theory Appl. 11, 3–18 (1979)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ringenberg, T., Seigfried-Spellar, K., Rayz, J.T. (2022). Uncertainty to Avoid Entrapment: Comparing Internet Stings to Real Victim Conversations. In: Rayz, J., Raskin, V., Dick, S., Kreinovich, V. (eds) Explainable AI and Other Applications of Fuzzy Techniques. NAFIPS 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 258. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82099-2_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82099-2_32
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82098-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82099-2
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)