Interpersonal Deception Theory: Example Case

Interpersonal Deception Theory: Example Case In the daily life, we are always having social interactions and communicate with people.  Therefore, we will be faced through a variety of conditions or circumstances faced by either consciously or unconsciously which has involved ourselves into what is called Interception Deception Theory which has been stated by David Buller and Judee Burgoon. Interpersonal Deception Theory means is trying to explain how is the individual make the interactions with the real lie or perceived in the conscious or unconscious while they are involving in the face to face communication. Communication would not be static because it has been influenced by not only ones goals itself, but it is also by how the interaction context. By sending the message and it was affected by the conduct and the message of receiver and vice versa. Furthermore, deception is different from the truth communication which means that intentional fraud requires more significant cognitive resources than the truthful communication, does the sender involved in the falsification creates a fiction, concealment hides a secret or equivocation dodges the issues. Buller and Burgoon define as a message knowingly transmitted by a sender to foster a false belief or conclusion by the receiver. (Buller and Burgoon, 1996: 203-242) The processes to establish a good relationship with the boyfriend, friends, family, leaders or lecturers are not always smooth as envisaged.  Therefore, we must be smart to choose the way for good relation which has been existed previously. Every person in this world will have a lied to a particular purpose, which namely was the target, maintaining their goals or saving their face themselves. Deception needs an effort and hard work. The liar has to be continued to deal with its task which was very complex in managing their lie strategy. If the lie have been too much, so there will be a leaking and this leak will affected to the non-verbal behavior. Lie will also create feelings of guilt and doubt which will be seen from the actions or behavior. The succession of the lie is also depends on the suspicion of the respondent. The respondent usually has the feelings that can be easily detected by the liar. The suspicion will be in the fact and fiction. According to Buller and Burgoon (1996:203-242), Communication senders attempt to manipulate messages so as to be untruthful, which may cause them apprehension concerning their false communication being detected.  Simultaneously, communication receivers try to unveil or detect the validity of that information, causing suspicion about whether or not the sender is being deceitful. (Buller, D.B., and Burgoon, J.K. (1996), Interpersonal deception theory Communication Theory, 19966:203-242) Interpersonal Deception Theory means that there are times when someone must lie. Lying is a manipulation of information, but someone who wants to lie should have a strategy which could be falsification, concealment and equivocation. According to Buller and Burgoon (1996:203-242), there are three aspects of deceptive messages which are: The central deceptive message, which is usually verbal. Ancillary message, which includes both verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication that often reveals the truthfulness of a particular message.   Inadvertent behaviors which are mostly nonverbal and help to point out the deceit of the sender through a term called leakage. (Buller, D.B., and Burgoon, J.K. (1996), Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242) Example case: There is a university student who has been in a relationship with her boyfriend since 5 years ago, and there is unexpected thing happens. The mother of her boyfriend had been in the verdict of a breast cancer by doctor when she had her healthy check up. Since the girl has been in a relationship for five years, she is so closed with her boyfriends family. She has been treating by her boyfriends parents like their own daughter, because they have their closed relationship so she is calling his boyfriends parents as Mom and Dad. The girl is taking care of her boyfriends mother because of their relationship and also because her boyfriend is the only child in the family so there was not any person who can take care of her mother except the girl. They went to Singapore continually to do the surgery and chemotherapy treatment and radiotherapy treatment. The girl always accompanies them to do all the things and helping them to go through the healing process. And since the girl is also a student in a university and she still having the class at that time, so sometimes she have to skipped the class in order to accompany her boyfriends mother and she told to her lecturers that her mother is having a breast cancer and she have to go to Singapore quite often to accompany her and the lecturers give their permission to her. And later on, the lecturers found out from the girl classmates or gossip that the girl is not telling the truth about the mother who was the girl says as her mom, it is not her biologic mother but her boyfriends mother. The girl says that is because she is calling her boy friends mother as my mom. In this case, it can be considered as interpersonal deception based on the three aspects of deceptive messages from Buller and Burgoon. There are two aspects that related with the case above which are: The central deceptive message, which is usually verbal means that there are miss communication between the girl and the lecturer. It has been misunderstood verbal communication in which she said her mom who according to her is the mother of the boyfriend who was she considered as her own mother that maybe it could be misunderstood by the lecturer who thinks that her mom was to show the biological mother  of this girl. So, there is a miscommunication and misunderstanding via verbal communication way between the girl and the lecturer which can be considered as interpersonal deception by the lecturer. And the other aspects is Ancillary message, which includes both verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication that often reveals the truthfulness of a particular message which means that v erbally, the girl said she is going to accompany her mom to have her medical treatment and care.  This girl is no intention to defraud or lie to the teacher by saying her mom who is the mother of her boyfriends mother as her own mother due to their close relationship between the girl and her boyfriends mother is already very close which causing the girl has been considered as child  of their own.  Furthermore, by the non verbal, the girl also gave evidence in the form of letters from the doctors who assume to write which it was true that the girl is coming to accompany her mother to having the medical treatment and medical care. Theoretical Perspective Interpersonal deception theory is a fraud which based on theoretical views of interpersonal communication.   Therefore, Buller and Burgoon assume that fraud is as an interactive process between sender and receiver. In contrast with previous studies of deception that focused on the sender and receiver individually, Interpersonal deception theory focuses on the dyadic, relational and dialogic nature of deceptive communication. The behaviors between the sender and receiver are dynamic, multifunctional, multidimensional and multimodal. (Buller and Burgoon, 1998) Dyadic communication  refers to communication between two people. A dyad is a group of two people between whom messages are sent and received. Relational communication refers to communication in which meaning is created by two people simultaneously filling the roles of both sender and receiver. Dialogic  activity refers to the active communicative language of the sender and receiver, each relying upon the other within the exchange. MANIPULATING INFORMATION: THE LANGUAGE AND LOOK OF LIARS Basically deception is hoax fraud information. Liars always use the falsification, concealment or equivocation to complete their lie. Fraud is usually done on the basis of motive to deceive. Usually a person who will commit a fraud has at least three goals which is to complete a certain task, to establish or maintain the relationships with the respondents, and to save their face or maintain the image of one or both parties. In our daily life, we always communicate to each other. The way that every individual communicate is different. The language that used was also different in accordance with the objectives to be achieved, so that sometimes some people think that the need to commit fraud. Based on Buller and Burgoon, they assume that the motivation and interpersonal identity fraud inherent in stimulating the text over the mark as a less honest communication. Although sometimes the respondents did not know or see any signs of deception, in theory there are four characteristics that reflect the strategic objectives, which are: Uncertainty and vagueness If the girl does not want the lecturer know about the truth that her mom who is not the girl biological mother, the girl will probably to keep the answer secretly and shortly. No immediacy, reticence and withdrawal If the lecturer suddenly say that the mother who the girl was accompany and taking care for the medical treatment and medical care is not her biological mother, the girl will probably wish that it is better that she do not tell anything to her friends. The girl might silent to hear the lecturer opinion about her statement. Disassociation The girl will give the explanation to the lecturer about the miscommunication and misunderstanding from the word her mom that the girl stated. The girl has been treating by her boyfriends parents like their own daughter, because they have their closed relationship so she is calling his boyfriends parents as Mom and Dad. Image-and relationship-protecting behaviour When the people want to do a fraud, they usually will acknowledge the existence of non-verbal leakage which will provide the signs that the words they communicate are lie. Based on Buller and Burgoon, It seems that smile might be a simple all-purpose strategy applies to cover lies.   (Buller and Burgoon, Interpersonal Deception Theory, 1996) People who want to know a clear way to separate the truth from the fraud can be through the four strategic signs that will give the right way to get honesty.  In the world of communication, it is not easy because almost all communication is intentional, goal directed, and conscious. Buller and Burgoon adopt the term leakage to refer to unconscious nonverbal cues that signal an internal state. IDTs explanations of interpersonal deception depend on the situation in which interaction occurs and the relationship between the sender and receiver. Over half of their 18 propositions involve the important distinction between strategic and nonstrategic activity. (Buller and Burgoon, 1996) Sender and receiver cognitions and behaviours vary systematically as deceptive communication contexts vary in (a) access to social cues, (b) immediacy, (c) relational engagement, (d) conversational demands, and (e) spontaneity. During deceptive interchanges, sender and receiver cognitions and behaviours vary systematically as relationships vary in (a) relational familiarity (including informational and behavioural familiarity) and (b) relational valence. Individual communicators also approach deceptive exchanges with their own set of pre-interaction factors, such as expectancies, knowledge, goals or intentions, and behavioural repertoires that reflect their communication competence. IDT posits that such factors influence the deceptive exchange. Compared with truth tellers, deceivers (a) engage in greater strategic activity designed to manage information, behaviour, and image and (b) display more nonstrategic arousal cues, negative and dampened affect, non-involvement and performance decrements. Context interactivity moderates initial deception displays such that deception in increasingly interactive contexts results in (a) greater strategic activity (information, behaviour, and image management) and (b) reduced nonstrategic activity (arousal, negative or dampened affect, and performance decrements) over time relative to non-interactive contexts. Sender and receiver initial expectations for honesty are positively related to degree of context interactivity and positivity of relationship between sender and receiver. Deceivers initial detection apprehension and associated strategic activity are inversely related to expectations for honesty (which are themselves a function of context interactivity and relationship positivity). Goals and motivations moderate strategic and nonstrategic behaviour displays. As receivers informational, behavioural, and relational familiarity increase, deceivers not only (a) experience more detection apprehension and (b) exhibit more strategic information, behaviour, and image management but also (c) more nonstrategic leakage behaviour. Skilled deceivers appear more believable because they make more strategic moves and display less leakage than unskilled deceivers. Initial and ongoing receiver judgments of sender credibility are positively related to (a) receiver truth biases, (b) context interactivity, (c) and sender encoding skills; they are inversely related to (d) deviations of sender communication from expected patterns. Initial and ongoing detection accuracy are inversely related to (a) receiver truth biases, (b) context interactivity, (c) and sender encoding skills; they are positively related to (d) informational and behavioural familiarity, (e) receiver decoding skills, and (f) deviations of sender communication from expected patterns. Receiver suspicion is manifested through a combination of strategic and nonstrategic behaviour. Senders perceive suspicion when it is present. Suspicion (perceived or actual) increases senders (a) strategic and (b) nonstrategic behaviour Deception and suspicion displays change over time. Reciprocity is the predominant interaction adaptation pattern between senders and receivers during interpersonal deception. Receiver detection accuracy, bias, and judgments of sender credibility following an interaction are a function of (a) terminal receiver cognitions (suspicion, truth biases), (b) receiver decoding skill, and (c) terminal sender behavioural displays. Sender perceived deception success is a function of (a) terminal sender cognitions (perceived suspicion) and (b) terminal receiver behavioural displays. (Buller and Burgoon, Interpersonal Deception Theory, 1996) THE RESPONDENTS DILEMMA: TRUTH BIAS OR SUSPICION? According to Burgoon and Buller (1996: 203-242) that respondents tend to think of interpersonal messages truthful, complete, direct, relevant, and clear-even when the speaker is lying. So no matter what you might say about the girl is accompanying her mother for the medical treatment and medical care, the lecturer probably will believe the girl. Whatever the reason for the assumption of veracity, Buller and Burgoon are convinced that whatever is said by people close to you, then the respondent would still believe the words despite occasional doubts. The experts of the theory found that whatever is said by people who close to us and that we love, friends and family will be hoping to get the honesty and truth of the spoken words. Although sometimes a strong truth and valid bias between each other face to face interaction, people also can doubt our word.  The lecturer may also suspicious of the doubt that the girl say after listening to gossip or news about the reality that the word her mom was not according to the girl biological mother. Buller and Burgoon define a suspicion as state of doubt or distrust that is held without sufficient evidence or proof. (Buller and Burgoon, Interpersonal Deception Theory, 1996) Phosphotransferase Systems: Regulations and Types Phosphotransferase Systems: Regulations and Types Abstract Not a single specific class of antimicrobial agent during the past few decades has yet been discovered leading to development of the new improved drugs for humans. Regardless of the enhanced existing class potency, the requirements for the new agents of anti-microbes continue. The purpose of this study was to explore the PTS system, its regulation and different PTS systems and to investigate catabolite repression and virulence factors in different bacteria especially Escherichia coli and it’s relation with the PTS system. Extensive literature was identified for this purpose to examine the ways through which the PTS system makes antimicrobials and antibiotics. For the discovery of new agents, the PTS or bacterial phosphotransferase system offer a possibility to offer new opportunities. This type of system offers an entry vehicle into the initiation of metabolism pathways and infecting bacteria for such agents. These agents are found to be active on both the sessile and growing forms and due to the eukaryotic lack of the counterparts of PTS these analogues are thought to be non-toxic for the animal host. INTRODUCTION Bacteria often live in inhospitable environments and numerous other bacteria are live in places with no oxygen. Hence, there options for generating the energy are limited. There are many clever ways developed by bacteria that may live off whatever is available and it tends to exploit these best advantage resources. In 1964 Kundig, Ghosh, and Roseman highlighted a novel system of sugar phosphorylation in one of the novel phosphorylating sugar system in Escherichia coli. It is a key transport system type which is exclusively found in the world of prokaryotes and the best-known group translocation system, a process in which an organic molecule such as glucose is transported to the cell while being chemically modified. The exclusive features of this phosphotransferase system comprise of phosphoenolpyvate (PEP) as the phosphoryl donor for phosphorylating sugar and the three vital catalytic entities present termed as Enzyme II, Enzyme I, and heat-stable, histidine-phosphorylatable protein HPr. The PTS system is responsible for the transport of sugar across the membranes of the bacteria as per the subsequent reaction: PEP (in) + carbohydrate (out) – pyruvate(in) + carbohydrate –phosphate (in) The system of phosphotransferase is often catalyzed by the concomitant sugars phosphorylation as well as hexitols and it usually regulates the response mechanisms dependant on the carbohydrate availability (Postma, et al.1993). It is a very complex system as it often acts as an environmental sensor and therefore requires performance of a numerous functions to sense and successfully delivering a desirable carbohydrate. Typical bacterial cells make many similar transporters that all stand ready to import whatever sugars are available. A complex regulatory network makes a decision which transporters are switched on and used at any given time. The PTS is also a very energy-efficient system when compared to the other transport systems in the cell. Many transporters use ATP to power the import of nutrients, but PTS uses a molecule of phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP-one of the intermediates in glycolysis) instead, to power the PTS reaction and provide the phosphate. This pre-phosphorylation of sugars primes them for entry into the energy production pathways (Kotrba, et al. 2001). In E.coli the PTS system is made up of two general cytoplasmic proteins: Enzyme I and a heat-stable protein (HPr). Both participate in transport of all PTS carbohydrates. The substrate-specific protein – Enzyme II consists of three functional domains: IIA, IIB (cytoplasmic and hydrophilic) and IIC (membrane-bound and hydrophobic) (Prescott, 2002). The Enzyme II domains are specific only for one or a few carbohydrates (Postma, et al 1993). However, in the PTS fructose transport of E. coli Enzyme I and HPr are fused together with central M domain and it is specific for this particular transport only (Reizer Saier, 1997). Figure 1 represents the constituents of the PTS system. Figure 1. Components of the bacterial PTS system: phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP), Enzyme I (EI), heat-stable protein (HPr), and Enzyme II (EIIA, EIIB, EIIC). Figure illustrates two examples of the PTS system in E. coli: glucose-specific and mannitol-specific. In this project I would like to present a review of literature on the PTS structure, role and regulation. I would like to show the connection between virulence and the phosphotransferase system in different bacteria and finally to examine the ways in which we can use the PTS system to create new antimicrobials and antibiotics without targeting the commensal organisms within the host. PTS structure Enzyme I Enzyme I (EI) is one of the two universal compounds at the entry point of the PEP-dependent sugar phosphotransferase system. The EI monomer consists of three structurally independent domains which are separated by long linkers (Fig. 2): N-terminal protein-resistant region (EIN) and the PEP-binding C-terminal domain (EIC) and linker helix that separates them (Margques et al, 2006). The N-terminal region is responsible binds HPr,and the C-terminal region which consists of the initial acceptor of the phosphoryl group (His-190) which binds PEP (Oberholzer et al, 2005). EI can appear as a monomer and a dimer (EI-P) but only a dimeric form can be phosphorylated (Chauvin et al 1994). It has been recently shown that magnesium and PEP influence both forms of EI but it remains unclear how a change from monomer to dimer activates an ability of EI to autophosphorylate (Patel et al 2006). Experiments on gel filtration showed that EIN which does not dimerize lacks a PEP-binding site but is still able to accept phosphaote from HPr in reversible phosphorylation (Chauvin et al 1996). Figure 2. Diagram of the Enzyme I model showing N- and C terminal domains with linker helix (Marques ate al, 2006). EI catalyses the first step in the PTS cascade. The activity levels of EI will determine the phosphorylation state of all PTS components, therefore it plays a key role in regulatory functions of PTS (Patel et al 2006). Low molecular heat-stable protein (HPr) HPr (histidine containing phosphocarier protein) is a single-domain cytoplasmic protein with molecular mass of 9kDa. Its main function is to accept the phosphoryl group from EI. Recently it has also been found that HPr acts as a intermediate in the signaling cascade that regulates transcription of genes which are related to the carbohydrate-response system. Those functions both involve reactions of phosphorylation and dephosphorylation, but at a different sites (Maurer et al 2001). The structure and function of HPr has been studied in the wide range of organisms. It was purified, inter alia, from: Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus lactis, Bacillus subtilis and Streptococcus pyogenes. HPr consists of four-stranded antiparallel B-sheet and L-helixes (two long and one short) set at one side of B-sheet (Fig.3). Interestingly the amino acid sequence in HPr protein differs among the species however, it shows similarity in secondary-structure elements and its tertiary fold (Hahmann et al, 1998). Figure 3. Structure of the HPr by Feng et al, 2001. Enzyme II complexes Enzyme II complexes are specific to one or few carbohydrates and consist of two hydrophllic domains: IIA and IIB, and one membrane-bound hydrophilic domain IIC. All three domains can be fused together in a single polypeptide chain or exist as two or three chains that interact with each other (Saier Reizer 1992). The first EII domain that was described was the II Man complex in E. coli which was later illustrated as EIIA and EIIB (Kundig Roseman, 1971). IIA domain carries the first permease-specific phosphorylation site and becomes phosphortlated on anhistidine residue by HPr. Domains IIA and IIB are similar in size and usually consists of 100-160 amino acids residues. IIC domain can form 6-8 transmembrane helixes and has around 350 residues (Kotrba et al 2001). The phosphoryl group is transferred from IIA to histidine or cysteine residue on IIB domain, depending on the carbohydrate transported. The third domain IIC is a substrate- specific site that develops a translocation channel for the sugar to be taken up through the membrane. Some specific transporters, like Mannose family in E.coli, possess another membrane-bound protein IID(ebi.ac.uk many references) Recognition of specific carbohydrate by IIC is not fully understood, yet. Although it is known that a certain motif, [Gn]-[Iv]-[Tsn]- E, plays a role in sugar identification. This highly conserved motif is shared among the IIE families and is located in the loop which is faced towards exterior of the cell and may be a part of the sugar-binding site (Robillard Bross 1999). Also, a glutamate residue located in the most conserved part of IIC GITE sequence (Chang et al 2005) is involved in phosphoryl transfer to the bound sugar ( Lengeler et al 1990). Families of PTS Enzyme II A bacterial cell may contain many PTS EII complexes, each exclusive to a different sugar. Most of those complexes share a number of characteristics: three domains IIA, IIB and IIC organized as free or fused structures which can be coupled by linkers and/or arranged in a different order (Lengeler, 1990). Four superfamilies have been described according to the evolutionary status (Saier et al., 2005): Glucose-Fructose-Lactose (Glu-Fru-Lac); L-ascorbate D-galactitol (Asc-Gat); Mannose (Man); Dihydroxyacetone (Dha). The Glu-Fru-Lac and Man super families are well-described. They are well incorporated with the PTS and are not able to transport carbohydrates by any other mechanism (Saier et al., 2005). D-Fructose is the only sugar that is taken into glycolysis reaction without rearranging its carbon backbone. Many bacteria lack other permeases but most possess fructose-specific PTS permease. It has been proposed that D-fructose was ubiquitous and specific to primeval organisms (Saier, 1977). In E .coli the multiphosphoryl transfer proteins (MTPs) were found in fructose-specific EI-like and HPr-like domains. MTPs are domains that display homology to modular proteins encoded by genes of some proteobacteria (Reizer Saier, 1997). The IIA Fru-like domain with central M domain of unknown function, phosphorylates IIB domain which is fused with another IIBC domain (Kotrba et al., 2001). It is the only example of protein with two IIB domains fused with IIC. In glucose permease of E. coli, EIIGlc contains protein IIA Glu encoded by crr gene and the IIB Glu encoded by pts gene. EIIA phosphorylates EIIB at a cysteine residue which is fused to EIIC through a linker (Postma et al., 1993). Other superfamilies like Asc-Gat have been characterized from genetic and biochemical view fairly recently (Nobelman Lengeler, 1996; Hvorupet al., 2003) and can act as secondary carriers depending on their specificity. Enzyme II complex of DHA family displays some similar mechanical characteristics to ATP-dependent precursor and PEP- dependent complex. Role of the PTS in chemotaxis Phosphotransferase system is well known of its ability to perform many different functions (Table 1). The role of PTS in chemotaxis has been described in 1974 by Alder and Epstein. They studied glucose transporter as chemoreceptor by using mutants lacking galactose binding protein. Mutants lacking EII glu but not EII Man did not move towards D-glucose and mutants lacking EII Man not EII Glu carried out movement with the specificity for D-mannosamine. Therefore, enzymes II work as recognition elements for specific chemoreceptors however the exact interaction between PTS and receptor-mediated signal remains unclear. Table 1. Functions of the PTS. In E. coli and many other bacteria, sensory centre is composed of chemoreceptors: kinase CheA and n adapter protein CheW that are organized in group which increase the signal through communication between those protein. Studies in vivi showed that signal from PTS is sent directly to the chempreceptors ChA and CheW through mediated interactions of EI and perhaps EIIA Glu (Neumann et al., 2012). The participation of EI and EIIA Glu in chemotaxis is reflects the importance of those components in other functions. The phosphorylation status of EI is associated with the rate of uptake of sugars. Phosphorylation of EIIA Glu is affected by the uptake of other sugars, not only glucose, maltose and trehalose because of the reversible reactions that occur within the PTS (Lengeler Jahreis, 2009). Regulation of PTS sugar uptake Thursday 20/03 3.1 Inducer exclusion and catabolite repression in E. coli 3.2 Global regulation of CCR 3.3 CCR and inducer exclusion in other bacteria Saturday 22/3 3.2 role and regulation by the EIIA Glu PTS protein in enteric bacteria 3.3 The Mlc transcription factor regulated by EIICBGlc in enteric bacteria 3.4 Regulation by HPr-Ser –P on low G+C Gram positive bacteria Sunday 23/03 Carbon metabolism and virulence in bacteria 4.1 Enterobacteria – E. coli 4.2 Vibrio cholera 4.3 Klebsiella pneumonia 4.4 Clostridium difficile PTS as a potential target for drug therapy Conclusion References (124)