The Differences Between Iranians and Americans with respect to Oral Indicators of Deception

Chapter 1: Introduction

Behavioral scientists have over the past 50 years developed a robust understanding of deception, which Vrij (2008) defined as “false communication that tends to benefit the communicator” (p. 13), and deception detection (Vrij et al., 2015). Researchers in this domain have focused almost exclusively on the behaviors of North Americans and Western Europeans (Taylor et al., 2015). De Paulo et al. (2003), who performed a meta-analysis of research on behavioral indicators of deception, examined only four studies of individuals in non-Western countries, but around 116 studies of individuals in the North America and Western Europe. Scholars and national security professionals have recognized that the lack of research on deception in non-Western cultures, here defined principally as social groups with a distinctive language, collective history, and set of institutions and group norms (Heine, 2008), is problematic (NDIC, 2006; Taylor et al., 2015). Security practitioners must increasingly determine the veracity of individuals from non-Western cultures (NDIC, 2006), but researchers have suggested that cross-cultural assessments of deception tend to be highly inaccurate. In their literature review, Taylor et al. (2015) found accuracy rates were typically below 50% when research participants were asked to determine whether someone from a different culture as theirs was lying.

The seeming inability to assess veracity in individuals from different cultures accurately is unsurprising in light of extant research on cultural differences in perceptions of deception and behavioral markers of deception (Taylor et al., 2015). Although limited in scope, existing researchers have suggested that there is substantial cultural variation in the nonverbal and verbal correlates of deception, with individuals in non-Western cultures displaying different cues when they lie as opposed to North Americans and Western Europeans (Taylor et al., 2015). Additionally, researchers have suggested that individuals in at least some non-Western cultures may not perceive certain types of objectively false statements to be lies (Taylor et al., 2015), a set of perceptions which could impair the ability of observers to detect deception (Vrij, 2008).

Background

Researchers have explored cultural variation in perceptions of lying (Fu et al., 2001). Multiple researchers have suggested that individuals’ beliefs about what constitutes a lie vary across cultures, with statements regarded as lies in one culture perceived to be truthful in others (Fu et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2010; Yeung et al., 1999). Individuals in East Asian cultures tend to not regard false statements about pro-social acts (i.e. good deeds) as lies, and the nature of deception is slightly different as they would have upheld the information rather than falsified it. (Fu et al., 2001). Westerners tend to regard both false statements about pro-social acts and false statements involving the deliberate withholding of information as lies (Fu et al., 2001). Researchers have ascribed this cultural difference to broader cultural differences in communication and the social function of certain types of lies in East Asian culture (Taylor et al., 2015).

A number of authors have explored the accuracy of deception judgments across cultures, that is, whether individuals from one culture are able to determine whether individuals from another culture are lying (Bond et al., 1990; Bond & Atoum, 2000; Global Deception Research Team, 2006). The general finding is that individuals’ accuracy with respect to cross-cultural deception judgments is below chance levels of accuracy (Bond et al., 1990; Taylor et al., 2015). This level of accuracy is in marked contrast to the accuracy of within-culture deception judgments, which tend to be above chance levels (Bond et al., 1990; Taylor et al., 2015). Researchers have suggested that the relative inaccuracy of cross-cultural deception judgments is due to individuals’ lack of familiarity with relevant features of the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of people from other cultures (Castillo & Mallard, 2012).

Related researchers have explored in various cultures assess veracity and why cross-cultural deception judgments tend to be so inaccurate (Global Deception Research Team, 2006). The Global Deception Research Team (2006) conducted surveys in 58 countries asking respondents how they determined whether someone was lying. The researchers found that the majority of survey respondents across all cultures believed liars avoided eye contact, shifted their posture, touched themselves, and told longer stories than truth-tellers (Global Deception Research Team, 2006). Castillo and Mallard (2012) proposed a model explaining the inaccuracy of cross-cultural deception detection. The authors suggested that people infer when an individual is lying when that individual violates social or conversational norms, especially those concerning eye contact (Castillo & Mallard, 2012). Inaccurate deception judgments occur when individuals fail to account for cultural differences in conversational norms, for example, assessing lack of eye contact to signal deception in instances where gaze aversion may simply signal respect for the other person (Castillo & Mallard, 2012).

Other researchers have identified cultural differences in the behaviors associated with deception (Taylor et al., 2015). Researchers have documented cross-cultural variation in both the non-verbal and verbal correlates of lying (Cheng & Broadhurst, 2005; Laing, 2015; Lewis, 2009). The limited research has displayed little general pattern of cultural variation, with cultural differences appearing to be specific to particular culture groups (Taylor et al., 2015). Cultural variation in the motivation to deceive has been the subject of multiple studies (Aune & Waters, 1994). The chief finding was that individuals in collectivist cultures tend to view lies that benefit the individual’s social unit more positively than do people in more individualist Western cultures (Aune & Waters, 1994; Li et al., 2006).

A dominant theme in the literature on culture and deception is the need for more cross-cultural research and the study of deception outside of North American and European contexts. Authors of multiple literature reviews (Taylor et al., Zhou & Lutterbie, 2005) have noted that the vast majority of deception studies include North American and European research subjects. Taylor et al. (2015), Zhou and Lutterbie (2005) have argued that it is difficult to describe deception related phenomena in non-Western cultures. Zhou and Lutterbie (2005) suggested the need for both bottom-up, studies which look at how specific elements of culture shape deception, and top-down studies, which explore how universal aspects of deception manifest themselves in culturally-specific ways.

In the proposed study, the researcher will examine differences between North Americans and Iranians with respect to verbal content indicators of deception. There is minimal extant research within the deception literature comparing Iranians to North Americans. Research on cultural differences in deception among Iranians is warranted simply because Iranians are members of a distinct cultural group (Lindholm, 2008), and such a study would expand the currently limited understanding of cultural variation in deception. More importantly, there are practical implications for the proposed research, namely, a potential increase in the ability of North American law enforcement and security professionals to detect lies perpetrated by Iranians. Iran currently presents a significant threat to the national security of the United States, and security practitioners often need to assess the veracity of Iranians, for example, concerning their compliance with recent agreements to limit Iran’s nuclear program (Clapper, 2015). The study of cultural variation in deception promises to increase the effectiveness of deception detection (Taylor et al., 2015) to the extent that it identifies markers of deception unique to Iranians. By elucidating culture-specific facets of Iranians’ perceptions of deception and deception-related behaviors, the researcher could enhance the ability of U.S. security professionals to determine whether Iranians are lying (NDIC, 2006).

Statement of the Problem

The lack of extant research on cultural differences in deception between Iranians and North Americans constitutes a significant practical problem in the study of deception and deception detection. The vast majority of peer-reviewed research on deception consists of studies of North Americans and, to a lesser extent, Western Europeans, raising the possibility that research has not adequately described deception in non-Western settings (Taylor et al., 2015). Instructional materials for national security and law enforcement personnel similarly focused in experience and research with North Americans (Taylor et al. 2015; Vrij, 2008). The U.S. Department of Defense’s National Defense Intelligence College review of research on deception and deception detection methods cited the lack of research on cultural differences in deception as a significant impediment to the ability of U.S. homeland security and intelligence professionals to assess potential threats effectively (NDIC, 2006).

The lack of research on cultural differences in deception is particularly acute with respect to Iranian culture. The current author’s survey of scholarly and applied literature on deception has found few research studies or applied material on the deceptive behavior of Iranians. Taylor et al. (2015) likewise cited studies of deception in the Chinese, Jordanian Arab, North African, and other cultural groups, but few studies of Iranians. Iranians constitute a distinct cultural group, different in terms of language, history, and social norms from other Middle Eastern and Central Asian societies (Clapper, 2015). Moreover, studies of cultural variation in psychological functioning find Iranians are unique with respect to some aspects of their cognitive processes (Castillo & Mallard, 2012). Thus, extant deception research on Jordanian Arabs (Castillo & Mallard, 2012) is unlikely to describe deception among Iranians accurately or adequately.

The national security threat posed by Iran renders an understanding of unique features of deception among Iranians of considerable practical importance. The focus of deception studies on North American and European research subjects would not constitute a substantive research lacuna or practical problem if deception were the same across cultures (Taylor et al., 2015). However, the relatively small number of academic studies which do explore deception in individuals from non-Western cultures such as Jordan and China find marked cultural differences in deception (Taylor et al., 2015).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study is to identify differences between Iranians and North Americans with respect to verbal indicators of deception. Following Taylor et al. (2015), participants in this study will write a false statement and judges/raters trained in the identification of verbal indicators of deception will examine the statements for deception markers. The researcher will administer all elements of the study in person. Study participants will be community samples of North Americans and Iranians in Northern Virginia, California, and New York. The sample size may vary from 200 to 300. There are communities of Iranians which will be the part of the population. The researcher will make an effort to recruit research participants who are homogeneous with respect to age, education, and gender, in order to eliminate the effect of these factors on deception cues. The results of this study may extend research on culture and deception to Iranians and North Americans, a key gap in the extant literature, and increase the ability of practitioners to identify deception among Iranians.

Theoretical Framework

Hoftstede’s (2011) cultural dimensions’ theory will guide the framework of this study. The theory of Hofstede identified six dimensions of cultural differences. The first dimension is power distance. Power distance relates to the different solutions to the basic problem of inequality (Hoftstede, 2011). The second dimension is the uncertainty avoidance, which considers the level of stress in society in the face of an unknown future (Hoftstede, 2011). The third dimension is individualism versus collectivism (Hoftstede, 2011). This is the integration of a person to primary groups. The fourth dimension is masculinity and femininity (Hoftstede, 2011). This involves the differences between men and women. The fifth dimension is long-term versus short-term orientation, which considers a person’s focus to the past, present, or future (Hoftstede, 2011). The last dimension is indulgence versus restraint, which relates to the gratification or control of a person on desires in enjoying life (Hoftstede, 2011). This study will focus on the dimension of power distance in terms of how people think in different cultures regarding deception. The focus was on power distance because the purpose of the study is to explore deception to understand the differences between Iranians and North Americans.

Research Questions

Researchers have indicated that there are cultural differences in whether people regard an objectively false statement as deceptive and cultural differences in the verbal indicators of deception (Fu et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2015; Yeung et al. 1999). However, research on these topics is limited to studies of Chinese, Arab, North African, and South American cultures (Taylor et al., 2015). There is minimal extant research on Iranians. Cultural differences in deception judgments and deception indicators are of both theoretical and practical interest. Cultural differences in deception are of theoretical interest to the extent they illuminate and reflect broader cultural differences in psychological functioning (Taylor et al., 2015). Cultural differences in deception are of practical interest because security practitioners may be unable to detect deception among individuals of different cultural groups (NDIC, 2006; Rotman, 2012). The proposed research attempts to answer the following research question:

Q1. Do Iranians and North Americans display different verbal indicators of deception when they write false statements? If so, what are these different indicators of deception?

Hypotheses

H1₀: There are no observed differences in the verbal indicators of deception in false statements written by Iranians and North Americans.

H1a: Iranians and North Americans present different and distinctive verbal indicators of deception in false written statements.

Theoretical Framework

Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimension theory will guide the framework of this study. According to the cultural dimension theory, there are six separate dimensions that define a culture. These dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. The first dimension, power distance, relates to the different solutions to the basic problem of inequality. The second dimension, uncertainty avoidance, considers the level of stress in society in the face of an unknown future. The third dimension is individualism versus collectivism, which is the integration of a person to primary groups. The fourth dimension, masculinity, and femininity, involves the differences between men and women. The fifth dimension is long-term versus short-term orientation, which considers a person’s focus to the past, present, or future. The last dimension, indulgence versus restraint, relates to the gratification or control of a person on desires in enjoying life (Hofstede, 2011).

In this study, the researcher will specifically focus on power distance, which also includes cultural acceptance of the concept of deception, or lying. Lying plays a role in power distance because power distance is the understanding and acceptance of how a society distributes power amongst the masses in a specific country (Hofstede, 2011). The United States has a low power distance, which makes sense given that it is a democracy that allows everyone to have a voice (Hofstede, 2011). Iran has a high power distance, which is no surprise when one considers that the governmental policies are based on Islamic traditions which place an emphasis on masculinity and patriarchy (Robinson, 2014). Cultures with high power distance accept that there is an unequal division of power amongst the masses and that some people will always have more power than others within a society (Hofstede, 2011). In Iran, this is true of female versus male, Christian versus Muslim, and citizen versus government officials (Taylor et al., 2015). Lying, or deception plays a role in power distance, in that it enables someone to gain power that they would not have earned otherwise (Hofstede, 2011). An example of deception in power distance would be politicians who mislead the public for the purpose of gaining favor (Gilbert, 2014). In terms of Iran, deception detection can be critical to geopolitical relations and national security (Clapper, 2015).

The current researcher will interpret a combination of Taylor et al. (2015) and the Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) using Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory in this study. Participants will write false statements and individuals that are supposed to be trained in verbal deception detection will attempt to identify the false statements. Taylor et al. (2015) recommended SVA as among the most effective systems for identifying deception amongst adults. Participants for this study are located in North America and Iran. Given the opposite power distance dynamics of these two countries, the participants can offer a breadth of diversity. Such diversity should allow the researchers to evaluate responses without blatant cultural similarity, which should more readily yield visible results.

Nature of the Study

The researcher will employ a qualitative examine Iranian-North American differences in verbal indicators of deception in written statements. It is a replication with Iranian research participants of Taylor et al. (2015). The method is selected this particular method because I am trained in forensic statement analysis and statement validity analysis. It presents a quantitative analysis of cultural, Iranian vs. North American, differences in verbal or speech content indicators of deception. Assessment of verbal indicators is an effective and commonly used method of deception detection in forensic and national security contexts (Vrij, 2008). Identifying distinctive deception cues displayed by Iranians or, discovering that Iranians do not differ from North Americans with respect to verbal indicators of deception, promises to enhance the ability of security professionals to determine the veracity of Iranians (NDIC, 2006).

Research participants will consist of a community sample of Iranians and North Americans in Northern Virginia, California and New York California. The anticipated sample size is 60, evenly divided between North Americans and Iranians. Study participants will be homogeneous with respect to salient demographic factors such as age, gender, and education. If the data will not be homogenous, the researcher will employ the appropriate statistical methods to control for independent variables other than culture such as religion etc. Iranian participants will use study materials in Farsi or Fenglish (Romanized Farsi). North American participants will use study materials in English. The researcher will administer the study in person through meeting participants in a private location.

Study participants will write one true and one false narrative statement on the subject “What I did last Sunday.” The true narratives will serve as a baseline, allowing the researcher to identify speech content features unique to deceptive statements as opposed to broader cultural differences in verbal behaviors (Vrij & Winkel, 1991). The author will assess the narratives for the presence of verbal indicators of deception, specifically the verbal cues that Vrij (2008) highlighted, the Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA), the Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), and the set of verbal indicators that Taylor et al. (2015) highlighted. CBCA is a commonly used method for determining the veracity of written and oral statements. SCAN is another commonly used method for determining veracity via speech content cues. Among these verbal cues are sentence length, negative emotion words, grammatical errors, and level of detail (Vrij, 2008). The researcher will use appropriate statistical methods such as t-tests to identify significant cultural differences in the presence of verbal indicators of deception.

Significance of the Study

Cultural differences have been observed in perceptions of what constitutes a lie (Fu et al., 2001), nonverbal behaviors displayed when lying (Lewis, 2009), and speech content indicators of deception (Taylor et al., 2015). The researcher may discover distinctive facets of deception among Iranians, such as deception indicators that North Americans do not manifest. Moreover, a null finding, an absence of cultural differences in deception between North Americans and Iranians, would also be of practical significance, to the extent it would increase security professionals’ confidence in the efficacy of extant procedures for deception detection, which assume a lack of cultural variation in deception (Vrij, 2008).

Definition of Key Terms

The researcher defined the following terms for use in the current study:

Cultural difference. This term refers to the diversity in practices of a group of individuals from various racial backgrounds (Vrij, 2008).

Deception. This is the term used for the action of deceiving a person (Taylor et al., 2015).

A verbal indicator of deception. This term refers to elements of written or oral speech that are associated with lying (Vrij, 2008). Examples include the quality and quantity of detail, response length, the relative frequency of self-references and the use of ambiguous or generalizing terms (Vrij, 2008). This study will not include behavioral elements of speech, such as speech hesitations and vocal pitch.

Summary

The proposed research extends the study of cultural variation in deception to the practically important domain of Iranians. The purpose of the study is to identify differences between Iranians and North Americans with respect to verbal indicators of deception. Following Taylor et al. (2015), participants in this study will write a false statement and the researcher in the identification of verbal indicators of deception will examine the statements for deception markers. The result of the proposed study should enhance the ability of security professionals to detect deception among Iranians, a crucial national security priority. The first chapter introduces the cultural differences specifically to two nations selected in this paper. The chapter consists of background information, research problem, significance and gap in the study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Several researchers analyzed western culture and its indicators of deception. Behavioral scientists have developed an understanding of how to report false-intentioned deception, which generally benefits the person making a false statement (Vrij, Akehurst, Soukara, and Bull, 2004) and the detection of deception (Vrij, 2002). Taylor, Larner, Conchie and Van der Zee, (2015) and De Paulo et al. (2003), both noted, however, that the vast majority of researchers who study cultural deception focused specifically on Western cultures. De Paulo et al. (2003) – is often cited a meta-analysis of deceptive behavior indicators, in which researchers studied only four studies of people in non-Western countries, but the 116 studies of people in North America and Western Europe.

Given the growing tensions between the United States and countries in the Middle East, the absence of non-Western countries, research is becoming increasingly important for national security advisers as they join allies among the enemy (NDIC, 2006). Taylor et al. (2015) indicated that the level of accuracy is usually less than 50% when participants in the study tried to determine if someone from another culture was lying. Detecting and identifying gaps in research could potentially be an advantage to law enforcement authorities, especially those that are related to international law, such as the Department of Homeland Security. Understanding the verbal and nonverbal signs of Iranian deception may be of paramount importance in the growing relationship between the US government and Iran (NDIC, 2006). The purpose of this quantitative study is to identify the differences between Iranians and Americans with respect to oral indicators of deception. Following Taylor et al. (2015), participants in this study write a false statement, and judges/evaluators trained to identify verbal indicators of deception will study requests for fraud markers. Participants in this study will be located in northern Virginia, California and New York.

The researcher used the following academic search engines to support the literature review: Google Scholar, EBSCOhost Research Databases Online, ProQuest, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and JSTOR: Storage Journal. Key search terms and combination of search terms, which researchers inject into different online databases include the following: Hofstede distance Iranian deception Iran, deception United States-Iran culture deception of Iran-States United, false government Hofstede, detection of children deceit or cultural interest deception All key terms gave the research that was related to the problem and research questions.

Of the literature cited in this review, 93 of the 96 sources used were published between 2012 and 2016. The investigator included additional studies written in 1994-2011 to discuss the Iranian and US government’s historic ties to deception. The combination of the literature used will help support the need for this study as it will show the absence of specific studies highlighting the oral patterns of Iran’s deception. In this review of the literature, the researcher will provide a broad basis for the research problem discussed in the previous chapter. In the first section, the researcher identifies a literature search strategy used to write a review of the literature. In the second section, the researcher focuses on the theoretical framework of the study, which is the theory of the cultural dimension of Hofstede. In the third section, the investigator focuses on the historical aspects of US-Iranian relations and examples of deception between the two governments. In the fourth section, the investigator focuses on the social recognition of deception as a conditional habit in children of various cultures. The last section of the literature review includes examples of deception on behalf of the Iranian government in recent nuclear transactions and deception patterns used by the leaders involved. The chapter concludes with a summary and conclusions of the literature review.

Theoretical Framework

Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimension theory will guide the framework of this study. According to the cultural dimension theory, there are six separate dimensions that define a culture. These dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. The first dimension, power distance, relates to the different solutions to the basic problem of inequality. The second dimension, uncertainty avoidance, considers the level of stress in society in the face of an unknown future. The third dimension is individualism versus collectivism, which is the integration of a person to primary groups. The fourth dimension, masculinity, and femininity, involves the differences between men and women. The fifth dimension is long-term versus short-term orientation, which considers a person’s focus to the past, present, or future. The last dimension, indulgence versus restraint, relates to the gratification or control of a person on desires in enjoying life (Hofstede, 2011).

In this study, the researcher will specifically focus on power distance, which also includes cultural acceptance of the concept of deception, or lying. Lying plays a role in power distance because power distance is the understanding and acceptance of how a society distributes power amongst the masses in a specific country (Hofstede, 2011). The United States has a low power distance, which makes sense given that it is a democracy that allows everyone to have a voice (Hofstede, 2011). Iran has a high-power distance, which is no surprise when one considers that the governmental policies are based on Islamic traditions which place an emphasis on masculinity and patriarchy (Robinson, 2014). Cultures with high power distance accept that there is an unequal division of power amongst the masses and that some people will always have more power than others within a society (Hofstede, 2011). In Iran, this is true of female versus male, Christian versus Muslim, and citizen versus government officials (Taylor et al., 2015). Lying, or deception plays a role in power distance, in that it enables someone to gain power that they would not have earned otherwise (Hofstede, 2011). An example of deception in power distance would be politicians who mislead the public for the purpose of gaining favor (Gilbert, 2014). In terms of Iran, deception detection can be critical to geopolitical relations and national security (Clapper, 2015).

The current researcher interprets the combination of Taylor et al. (2015) and reliability analysis of the Content Analysis Report (SCAN) using Hofstede’s cultural measurement theory in this study. Participants will write a true and false statement, and an investigator who has been trained in the forensic analysis will identify misleading signs in false statements, while the true statement serves as the basis. Taylor et al. (2015) recommended VAS as the most effective system for identifying fraud among adults. Participants in this study are North American and Iranian based in North America. Given the opposite dynamics of the capacity of these two countries, participants can offer a wide diversity. This diversity should allow the researcher to evaluate the responses without apparent cultural similarity, which should be more readily visible.

Review of relevant literature

The investigator will discuss extensive research on verbal and nonverbal deception in the next section. From various studies related to the definition of fraud in various cultures, detection of cheating children from around the world, the effect of deception on small and large enterprises, the need for fraud detection, deception and cases documented fraud by the Iranian and US governments, the investigators presented a detailed examination of relevant studies. Through the presentation of these studies, the researcher will illustrate the need for an upcoming study and is a research gap that requires the study of verbal deception between Iranian culture.

Cultural impact transforms it into deception and culture

Researchers have consistently demonstrated the importance of culture in relation to the ability or role of fraud in studies in which researchers have used Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory (Saboori et al, 2015. Sadeghi, Amani and Mahmudi, 2013, Salehi Kangarluey and Hodayarigane, 2013). In most cases, these researchers used Hofstede’s theory to understand the cultural impact on business (Hofstede, 2011; Mardani, Bagheri, Soltan and Lari, 2013). Mardani et al. studied the influence of general soft quality management Hofstede (STQM) on the development of business and culture in Iran. Mardani et al. (2013) used a combination of the STQM and Hofstede cultural measurement theory to analyze the behavior of 100 small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran. Each participating company interviewed 10 percent of its employees to give a sample of each organization (Mardani et al., 2013). After studying the responses of the participants, the researchers found that Iran actually regressed in its cultural dimensions, how to evaluate Hofstede’s theory (2011). The researchers illustrate this regression in workers ‘justification regarding freedom of religion and property, job satisfaction, and commitment to advancement and employees’ feelings about adequate compensation compared to the level of education (Mardani et al., 2013). Mardani et al. (2013) recommended that other studies assess the motivation of Iranian workers on the need and employment goals and feelings regarding the needs or desires of post-secondary education.

Saboori, Pishghadam, Fatemi, and Ghonsooli (2015) published a similar study, which confirmed the findings Mardanov et al. (2013) but was broken in cultural differences between the age groups of measurement. In addition, Saboori et al. (2015) found that university students were representatives of the new era of Iran because their cultural aspects were significantly different from the historical analysis of Iranian culture. Janjua and Mühlbacher (Jacjua and Mühlbacher, 2014) have also supported the need for a cultural and economic sense when it comes to international trade, including the recognition that the cultural dimensions of moved and recognized new dynamics, such as the transition of man a woman or collectivist for individualists.

Zabardast (2015) studied the influence of religion and modernism in the culture of Iran. Zabardast (2015) explained that although modernism had a great influence on the western world, Iran and most of the Middle East region. Muslim culture views this touch of modernism as simply fulfilling the words of the Quran (Zabardast, 2015). Contrary to modernism in the West, Iran and much of the Middle East occupied Westernism in the rebirth and profound influence of Islamic ideologies (Zabardast, 2015). Westernism is a means of identifying one’s culture and faith among those who can renounce their beliefs (Zabardast, 2015). Researchers should consider this growing identification of the Westerner, who first appeared in the northern territories of Iran and spread throughout the country when he sought to understand radicalism from Islamic countries. This cultural dynamics can play an important role not only in Iran’s future efforts but also in the behavior of the Iranian people, who also argued that ideology as their own Zabardast (2015).

Bochner and Hesketh (1994) evaluated the theory of power distance and individualism Hofstede in a multicultural office building, trying to find out if the characterization of Hofstede is very evident among a diverse group of employees. These researchers rated 263 employees who emigrated from 28 countries, all of whom currently work in an Australian bank (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). Each participant completed a detailed study, which focused on their ability to use their cultural habits in the workplace, feelings of discrimination, their own views on multicultural staff and tolerance to this demographic data, their ability to make friends, their family relationships, and their views on the importance of work compared to compensation (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). After reviewing all staff surveys, researchers found that most non-white immigrants feel as if they have experienced some form of racism or prejudice while working in a bank (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994). Employees also expressed a sense of isolation from many of their peers because of cultural barriers; However, non-white staff also multi-cultural dynamics provided great support in the workplace and supported the continuation of the diversity around them (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994).

In contrast, Sadeghi, Amani Mahmoud (2013) tested a study of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, the basic psychological need in La Guardia, and a questionnaire to answer Sachs’s questions, which completed 108 Iranian professors. The results suggest that, as with a greater sense of Western culture in relation to job satisfaction, the results are related to the organizational culture of a separate school (Sadeghi et al., 2013). In addition, the results were based on how well the organization meets the psychological needs of each person (Sadeghi et al., 2013).

In the chapter “Working Problems for Americans” Benton (2014) discussed the philosophy of Bill James, statistics, and the famous baseball fan. Benton showed how James’s opinion on baseball statistics is actually related to the opinions of many experts on culture, religion, politics and more. James’s theory against clutch participants or that is only known because of tension, is that there is no such thing as a movie player – the whole concept – is nothing more than intuition and instant motivation, rather than forced talent (Benton, 2014). Jacob also talked about politics and religion, observing that in many cases, when public figures say about the subject, they mix their own intuitive opinions on the subject with the fact that then they make their own mind the fact, like the public (Benton, 2014 ). the eclipsed view of what Benton (2014) did about James’s theory is that it would be impossible to quantify baseball talent or political talent if a person decides to act only in times of careful study. Instead of focusing only on one person during periods of increased stress, it should be possible to observe a person under any circumstances to be able to assess a person’s true talent, not only likely “silly luck” of a beautiful movement when everyone looked (Benton, 2014). Benton recommended that researchers apply the same logic to the assessment of world leaders and the dynamics of culture, since the evaluation process should be carried out not only during the global crisis or the elections.

Castillo and Mallard (2012) discussed many studies conducted since 1994, during which researchers analyzed trends and cultural recognition of deception among peoples. Castillo and Mallard (2012) focused on the verbal and nonverbal findings of fraud in Western countries and identified the habit in Western cultures, which marked a tendency to lie or cheat. His attention to deception was discussed with the usual appearance and avoidance of eye contact, changes in the tone of a person’s voice and other secondary body movements (Castle and Mallard, 2012). Castillo and Mallard (2012) discussed research deficiencies of other researchers and indicated how their studies conflict with others. They also proposed additional ideas on projects that should be undertaken to include the need to study deception indicators in the countries of the Middle East and Africa (Castillo & Mallard, 2012). The couple also talked about the growing popularity of online communication and teleconferencing and the challenges facing technology in attempting to observe deceptive behaviors (Castillo and Mallard, 2012).

Deception Detection in Children

To detect fraud, you need to understand why people cheat each other. Studies by children show that they are the scientific skills of social survival (Lee, 2013), which help to obtain social status among peers. The study of Euro-Canadian Chinese children and have shown that lying was acceptable among Chinese children if it brought personal benefits (Dmytro et al., 2014). In contrast, Canadian children frowned, if there was no intention to positively influence the group (Dmytro et al., 2014). The larger the team, the more children were misleading, but if the effect was negative, the children were against lying altogether (Dmytro et al., 2014).

Using the modified paradigm of resistance to temptation, Hayes and Carver (2014) tried to understand how adults “lie to children” in children’s behavior. More specifically, if an adult lied to a child, the child would most likely lie to an adult. The researchers divided school age and preschool into two categories. They told half of the guys a lie and did not say anything to the other half before their interview. Investigators instructed all children not to look at the toy when the interviewer leaves the room. Researchers found that school-age children, whom they lied to, are more likely to look at the toy and are more likely to lie in the toy’s beak. Preschoolers, however, are more likely not to look at the toy or lie about peeping (Hays and Carver, 2014). The results of this study opened up more questions about why age groups had different outcomes. School-age children may simply follow the example of adults, which means that the same can be said for preschoolers who do not look and do not lie. Other studies focusing on the same age groups with switching conditions would be useful in assessing the accuracy of study results (Hays and Carver, 2014).

In his 2015 study, Alloway, McCallum, Alloway, and Hoicka asked what makes a good liar. Recognizing that the ability to lie first begins in adolescence, researchers turned to children to find their answer. In a random selection of six and seven-year-olds, researchers used the temptation-resistance paradigm (Alloway et al., 2015). First, the researchers gave the children a test version with the cards. The researchers then gave the children a chance to see the answers on the back of the cards. The researchers then asked the children the same little things but told them to respond only to those questions that really knew the answers, not the answers they had previously seen on the cards. Researchers were then able to divide the group into “good liars” and “bad liars” (Alloway et al., 2015). Researchers pointed out that all good liars had high mental memory skills. The bad liars had a significantly lower mental memory. The researchers observed that all children had relatively similar visual and spatial memory working (Alloway et al., 2015). The results of the study showed that good liars can be developed based on listening skills rather than simply memorizing the vision (Alloway et al., 2015). As for deception between Iran and the United States, the results of the study suggest that government can identify “good liars” at an early age and raise them to cultivate deceptive skills (Alloway et al., 2015). Like many Cold War conspiracy theories that said that Russia educates children to be spies, the findings of Alloway et al. (2015) suggested that such practices might be possible (Herrold-Menzies, 2012).

Lingwood and Bull (2013) attempted to determine whether there was a connection between the timing of the publication of the evidence and the tendency of teenagers to lie. In their study, Lingwood and Bull (2013) tested a group of 52 adolescents aged 12 to 14 years. The researchers gave half of the group the scene of the crime they committed; the other half did not commit such crimes. Then the investigators questioned both groups, which were supposed to declare their innocence to the interviewers. The researchers filmed the video of the group to observe a verbal and nonverbal behavior of participants. The researchers found that a group of teenage liars had certain verbal and nonverbal traits when they lay. The results were agreed upon by the underlying participants (Lingwood & Bull, 2013). The researchers found that unthinkable participants had no real replicas or indicators of truth during their interviews (Lingwood & Bull, 2013). The results suggest that although models may be present between lying, it may be difficult to determine the actual patterns between Pravdists (Lingwood & Bull, 2013). Researchers suggested that scientists conduct more research to assess verbal and non-verbal cues of deception based on gender, socioeconomic status, and education (Lingwood & Bull, 2013).

Historical Iran

To fully understand the cultural dynamics of Iran, you must first understand the rich history of territory and people. The Safavid era in Iran lasted from 1501-1722. A.D. (Sani, 2013). Sani sought to explore the relationship between the Safavid era, the existing architecture, and art of the time, as well as the attitudes and influence it still holds on the Iranian people. Sani considered the ideology of Sharia and Foucault regarding symbolism in relation to religion and power. The researcher focused on the architecture of public buildings built in the Safavid era (Sani, 2013). Sani studied the architectural qualities of light reflection, size, shape, details, religious symbolism, political symbolism and the existence of these examples in modern architecture around Iran. Sani decided that studying the Safavid system of beliefs will help understand the current cultural norms of the Iranian people and can determine the emergence of many national customs.

As for his philosophy of history, Aslani, Ramirez Marin, Semnan-Azad, Brett and Tinsley (2013) discusses the Iranian proverb, which says: “The one who throws a lump on which should be rewarded with a stone.” the possibility of violent reprisals or deliberate deception, this Adagio more urgent, but can have a negative impact on the international perception of the country (Aslani et al., 2013). In their 2012 article, Jahedi and Abdullah discussed the destructive and coercive language of the New York Times with regard to US relations with Iran after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Jahedi and Abdullah analyzed all articles published in the New York Times in the 3 years following the attacks. The researchers discovered a sample of misleading language, exaggeration and generally negative attribute, placed in all articles with reference to Iran (Jahedi & Adbullah, 2012). The New York Times was unable to publish any story about Iran, which pointed out something honest, positive or effective that the Iranian government achieved during this period (Jahedi & Adbullah, 2012). Jahedi Abdullah, and specifically found that the New York Times highlighted most of its articles on geopolitics on the Bush administration’s list of an evil axis and focused its articles on adverse events in these governments (Jahedi and Abdullah, 2012). Jahedi and Abdullah discussed the social implications of the New York Times influence on Iranian American opinion as well as the negative and positive impact of these views on foreign policy.

Similarly, The Economist published a series of articles on Iran from 2004 to 2010 (Rasti and Sahragard, 2012). The economist discussed Iran’s nuclear program (Rasti and Sahragard, 2012). A review of articles by Rusty and Saharar (2012) showed that the magazine ultimately portrayed Iran as unreliable and advocated further sanctions against Iran. This attitude corresponded to the standard American views on the Iranian government.

Despite the negative light in which the US media continue to portray Iran, the country of Iran has in its own prosperity and economic success. Canestrino, Bonfanti, and Oliae (2015) compared Iran’s culture and economy to European countries. They found that Iran can be self-sufficient and work more efficiently because of its isolationist approach to governance (Canestrino et al., 2015). Eliminating the influence of other countries allows Iran to focus exclusively on its own people and economy and allows the country to thrive independently of the economic condition of other countries (Canestrino et al., 2015).

In their research work published in 2014, Abdollahimohammad, Jafar, and Rahim defined culture as Hofstede’s definition, ie, culture is the collective programming of the mind of a group of people (Hofstede, 2011). Given this definition, the researchers sought to compare the cultural values ​​of Iranian nursing students with Malaysian nurses (Abdollahimohammad et al., 2014). The researchers carried out this study between three Malaysian universities with Iranian exchange rate students selected for the study (Abdollah Mohammed et al., 2014). A total of two hundred and forty-one students participated in the course, although not all students completed the study for several reasons (Abdollah Mohammed et al., 2014). Of the participants, 123 were Iranian and 118 were Malaysian (Abdollahimohammad et al., 2014). The results showed that 79 percent of Malaysian students were Muslims, and 99 percent were female (Abdollahimohammad et al., 2014). Of the Iranian students, 58 percent were women and 99 percent were Muslims (Abdollahimohammad et al., 2014). According to Hofstede (2011), Malaysia has a powerful distance compared to Iran. Despite this, Iranian students could easily assimilate into Malaysian classes without major errors or disrespect (Abdollahimohammad et al., 2014). The results of this study are important because Malaysia has relatively strict rules for class etiquette and highly appreciates teachers, which is very different from Iranian culture (Abdollahimohammad et al., 2014).

In a study on the acceptance by Iranian students of general pedagogy colleges, researchers found that students mostly have negative beliefs; researchers recommended that teachers include the concept adopted by world philosophy earlier in the Iranian educational system (Pishghadam & Meidani, 2012). This lack of contact with the world’s philosophy is consistent with other actions observable in the Iranian government (Oksnevad, 2012). The Iranian government appealed to the Muslim community, encouraging them to retaliate against the growing population of Christians converted among Iranian Muslims and the propaganda of violence against any Christian among them (Oksnevad, 2012).

Islamic customs among women and men limit direct communication (Bucar, 2012). El-Bassiouni (2014) widely discussed the limitations of marketing and communication between Islamic cultures. Strict adherence to the disguised view of women and dominant male projections directly affects the approach to corporate marketing in an Islamic country and can affect the ability of an organization to conduct international business with an Islamic nation (Furner & George, 2012). Taking into account the power ratings and evaluation of the masculinity of Hofstede, Rariq and Khan (2014) discussed the lack of innovation or the interests of entrepreneurs in Iran with regard to creating a business on a global level.

Pratt (2012) discussed the use of blogs during the crisis and the time of stressful situations in governments. Popular bloggers have the ability to provoke or reassure the public (Pratt, 2012). Considering collectivist and individualistic nations, individualistic nations are more creative and open to artistic innovations that can directly affect the marketing potential (Rinne, Steel, & Fairweather, 2013). Iran acquires an individualistic character, given its restrained views on creativity; however, it can be argued that Iran is a collectivist nation when considering Islamic dominance (Rinne et al., 2013). According to Hofstede’s theory (2011), the opportunity to finally determine whether a country is individualistic or collectivist is important in determining the country’s propensity to deceive strangers. This is due to the relationship between the protection of society or the openness and the way these dynamics interact with the distance of power and, consequently, by deception (Hofstede, 2011).

It is also necessary to take into account the feelings of trust between the Iranian people in relation to other Iranians. Salehi, Kengarley, and Hodayarigan (2013) discussed the influence of public opinion on business success. In particular, researchers were interested in the business’s ability to flourish if there was already a sense of distrust between business and the consumer (Salehi et al., 2013). Trust also affects foreign purchases and tourism (Cui, Fitzgerald, & Donovan, 2014). The influence of the country of origin on consumers when living or traveling abroad can greatly influence consumer behavior (Cui et al., 2014). Lack of trust in the host country can have negative economic consequences if, instead of creating a positive report, a country creates a reputation for distrust and deception (Cui et al., 2014). To counter this effect, Pancharelli and Gabbabelli (2014) stressed the importance of building trust and taking into account individual cultural traditions in marketing and building business relationships in all countries (Pencarelli & Gabbianelli, 2014).

Kompanyan (2013) discussed the relevance of the Islamic Labor Ethics (IWE) and its impact on job satisfaction and business relationships. The companion interviewed 350 executives of financial institutions in Iran. The survey evaluated the attitude of managers towards working conditions, the establishment of business relations, the impact of religion on work practices, organizational commitment, trust in work and conflict resolution strategies (Kompanian, 2013). The researcher found that IWE is extremely important for job satisfaction of Iranian workers, workplace behavior, conflict resolution and business development (Kompanian, 2013).

Nazaryan, Iran, and Ali (2013) discussed the impact of organizational size on government influence within the organization. The larger the organization in Iran, the greater the influence of government on organizational culture (Nazarian et al., 2013). The findings also raise the question of the impact of the IWE and the correlation with government influence. Gazor, Kohkan, Kiarazm, and Amelekh (2012) discussed the importance of trust in the exchange of knowledge in the workplace. A large survey of empirical studies has shown that the only factor that does not affect the exchange of knowledge and trust in the workplace is the organizational structure (Gazor et al., 2012). Despite serious concerns about workplace mistrust, men observed women when women competed with men for the same proportion, and when women observed the tensions or the competitiveness of women (Gazor et al. 2012).

Deception among Iranian citizens

The only way to understand the motives of deception between the Iranian people or government is not only to understand their historical culture but also to learn some of the dynamics that shape today’s society. Berman (2015) noted that Iran is the most socially and educationally developed country in the Middle East. Thirteen percent of the country’s population has a higher education, which is the highest percentage in the Middle East, with the exception of the main enemy of Iran, Israel (Berman, 2015). The average age of Iranian citizens is 28 years (Berman, 2015). More than half of the country has access to the Internet, with which they communicate regularly (Berman, 2015). Iran uses a virtual private network (VPN) connection in its country, allowing the government to filter the information available to citizens (Berman, 2015). Berman discussed the Green movement and attempted a 2009 revolution in which the government succeeded in halting the launch attempt due to online monitoring (Berman, 2015). The government intercepted communications between party supporters and allowed Internet access to the country during the revolution (Berman, 2015). The government has also been able to disable all use of cell phones and mobile devices (Berman, 2015). While Iran is still in effect with the modern standards of the rest of the world, the government retains the remaining power over citizens, allowing only controlled progress (Berman, 2015).

When studying a nation it is also useful to see things from your point of view. This may include understanding their views on politics, religion, health, survival skills, parenting and even body language (Krys, Hansen, Xing, Szarota and Yang, 2013). Krys et al. (2013) attempted to define a cultural interpretation of the views of seven individuals on a smile. The seven countries participating in the study were China, Germany, Iran, Norway, Poland, the United States and South Africa (Krys et al., 2013). In the study, the researchers interviewed people from each country and showed them pictures of people smiling and not smiling (Krys et al., 2013). The researchers asked the participants to interpret the facial expressions of the images and indicate whether the person in each photo was intelligent or not. Of all countries, most participants in Iran considered smiling people to be stupid (Krys et al., 2013). Iranian participants specifically pointed out that it is unfavorable to contact people when they walk in public places and that only someone who does not know about their culture will be foolish enough to walk, smile and make contact with strangers in Iran (Krys et al., 2013). In addition, Iranian participants felt that smiling pictures portray people as unreliable and suspicious (Krys et al., 2013). 2016 will follow this study by Krys et al. showed that corruption and mistrust in society give rise to suspicion among smiling and non-smiling people. In particular, Iran was an excellent example of this quality.

Mynbayeva, Miteva, Anarbek, and Bulatbaeva (2016) studied the stability of the Kazakh and Bulgarian students. Mynbayev et al. (2016) interviewed and interviewed 50 schoolchildren from Kazakhstan and Bulgaria. Questions during the interview included scenario-based decision making and determining which response best fit their own actions (Mynbayeva et al., 2016). The researchers also asked students about their experiences with war, trauma, loss of loved ones, transitions, and so on. D. (Mynbayev et al., 2016). In general, Mynbayev and others (2016) found that both groups of students have a high level of fault tolerance. Among these recovery skills was the accelerated ability to deceive their audience, if necessary for survival (Mynbayeva et al, 2016). Given the regional proximity of these countries to Iran, the relevance of the survival skills of these children in childhood resonates with the relationship of children to Iranian children (Mynbayev et al., 2016). Students reported using lying in various situations to avoid punishment by family, school, and religious leaders (Mynbayeva et al., 2016). This adaptation seemed normal among students who seemed almost never to regret their actions until they received a positive result (Mynbayeva et al, 2016).

Aliakbari and Tazik (2015) published a study in which researchers accidentally found samples between students and teachers. Babay and Nejadhanbar (2016) published a more in-depth look at the same behavior. Babayi and Nedzhadhanbar (2016) studied 156 Iranian graduate students in an “Applied Linguistics” specialty and tried to understand students’ opinions about plagiarism, and their ability to identify plagiarism and plagiarism, and students to study the possible consequences of such an act. Using quantitative and qualitative data, students completed an online survey. Data analysis, researchers found that Iranian students were generally very relaxed about the idea of ​​plagiarism, and there was no understanding of what plagiarism is and why it is unacceptable practice (Babaii and Nejadghanbar, 2016). On the other hand, Babayi and Nedzhadhanbar (2016) found that students considered plagiarism as soon as the education guilt of each student. Students have expressed numerous justifications for plagiarism, which included frustration and difficulties with teachers who have unrealistic expectations of students, a pressure to achieve good results, lack of attention to other teachers in the assessment that facilitated plagiarism convenience and other issues (Babai and Nejadghanbar, 2016).

“Sofyder” (2013) analyzed the 30-year documentation on the Iranian government’s methods of working with foreign diplomacy. The findings indicate a consistent pattern of reluctance to negotiate with US forces. and the UN (Connector, 2013). The results were also consistent with Iran’s recent behavior in which the government did not want to negotiate or recognize the sanctions imposed (Sofer, 2013).

Iranian Governments and Deception

In discussing the deception between Iran and the United States, it is reasonable to discuss the significant events of the 1970s and 1980s, which eclipsed relations between the two countries. Gilbert (2014) spoke in detail about the Iran-Contra scandal. In a review of the incident’s origin of the scandal began in 1985 after a Lebanese newspaper published an article stating that the United States agreed to arms hostage with Iran in an attempt to restore the five hostages of the terrorist group “Hezbollah”, which is supported by Iran (Gilbert, 2014). The terrorist group took hostages in the attack and destruction of the CIA office in Beirut (Gilbert, 2014). The Beirut attack led to the capture of Hezbollah by Beirut station chief William Buckley (Gilbert, 2014). Shortly after the capture of Bakli Maykl Ledeen, National Adviser to the Security Council, a plan has been developed for the trafficking of hostage weapons, which is also an open relationship with the US. and Iran (Gilbert, 2014). Gilbert, however, pointed out that this plan is completely contrary to President Reagan’s policy that he never negotiated with terrorists. He also violated Operation Staunch, which barred US allies from supplying arms to Iran (Gilbert, 2014).

President Reagan underwent surgery for colon cancer in the summer of 1985 (Gilbert, 2014). During this time, he took the 25th Amendment, in which Vice President Dzhordzh Bush served as acting president at the time Reagan was rendered incapacitated (Gilbert, 2014). Although the modification is used during the operation, President Reagan quickly resumed his authority as soon as he woke up from surgery, despite the intense pain (Gilbert, 2014). Five days after surgery, while under the influence of intravenous morphine, President Reagan met with National Security Advisor Robert McFarland to discuss the talks in Iran (Gilbert, 2014). At that time, President Reagan accepted an agreement with the hostage weapon and told McFarland to take action (Gilbert, 2014). As soon as history broke down in Lebanon, the world media posted this story and placed the White House’s relationship with Iran on the central stage (Gilbert, 2014). As the world observed, the Reagan administration denied that any agreement existed (Gilbert, 2014).

Indeed, Reagan switched anti-aircraft missiles to the Iranian government in exchange for the Iranian government to help in the belief of “Hezbollah” release all American hostages in Lebanon (Gilbert, 2014). Despite the revelation of the truth, President Reagan spent several performances over the next year, in which he denied the transaction was ever carried out (Gilbert, 2014). In late 1987, President Reagan finally took over the dispute between Iran and Kontramiey, telling people that what began as a way to improve relations between the United States and Iran, has become an agreement on (Gilbert, 2014) Even in this recognition of the American people, President Reagan continued to live a part of the lie (Gilbert, 2014). This profound deception solely on behalf of the US government eclipsed relations with Iran over the last 30 years (Gilbert, 2014).

Given the deception of President Reagan, it may be fair to seek an excuse for politicians deceiving citizens and each other. Clementson (2016) tried to understand why politicians lie. Using the theory of likelihood and information manipulation theory 2, Clementson (2016) studied presidential debates that ranged from 1996 to 2012. During the study, Clemenson (2016) sought deceptive statements and language in the debate. Clementson (2016) also compared what the candidates said that they want the country to take action that they actually took. After analyzing the video candidates, which allowed to evaluate the body language, fluctuations in vocal tone and language selection, the author came to the conclusion that politicians, as a rule, do not deceive their audience specifically. Rather, Clementson (2016) suggested that politicians are trying to give eloquent answers in a short time, under severe stress. This combination of environmental and mental stress forces politicians to carefully choose their words to help them immerse themselves in the notorious hole (Clementson, 2016). However, by taking the time to carefully select these words, many politicians can not fully answer the question or take responsibility for the topic, which makes them seemingly evasive and deliberately deceptive (Clementson, 2016).

Stevens (2012) and Rahagi (2012) discussed the Iranian civil war and attempted the 2009 revolution. Rahagi compared the events of 2009 with the Iranian crisis of 1979. Despite the fact that the 2009 movement used social media, the movement was very disorganized (Rahaghi, 2012). On the contrary, the 1979 crisis in Iran grew out of a grassroots movement that took place around pamphlets and held closed meetings around Iran (Rahagi, 2012). Despite the failures of the 2009 conflict, the uprising led to the disclosure of North Korea’s cooperation with the Iranian government in the program on uranium enrichment in North Korea (Stephens, 2012). This was the first time that there was any concrete evidence of relations between the two countries, in particular, a partnership with respect to nuclear intentions (Stephens, 2012).

Cheren (2015) discussed the deception of the US government regarding the nuclear negotiations of 2013 with Iran, which tried to impose strict sanctions against Iran so that they could not create their own nuclear program. In 2013, President Obama and his administration repeatedly insisted that Iran has ceased its desire for a nuclear bomb and is no longer seeking to acquire uranium or plutonium (Ceren, 2015). Despite these reports from the death of the Iranian White House, the press and the rest of the world learned that the Iranian program never ceased (Ceren, 2015).

After a tense relationship between the United Nations and Iran, the government published a US intelligence report that explains the risks of Iran’s nuclear program and their growing influence in the countries of the Middle East (Clapper, 2015). Two emphasized aspects of the report are concerns about Iran’s influence on the governments of Iraq and Syria, and Iran as a force in the Middle East among the crumbling countries (Clapper, 2015). The report also talks about Iran’s continuing development of nuclear weapons and the possible deployment of such weapons by Iran against Israel (Clapper, 2015).

Despite evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear program, there is also evidence that Iran has not taken such action (Herman & Peterson, 2012).

The head (2012) discussed the ongoing feelings of distrust between the West and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program. Although the head called for the need for sympathy and a reflexive conversation between the United States and the UN, when he was dealing with Iran in order to gain understanding, the researcher also stated several examples of why the United States and the UN will find it hard to trust Iran or feel empathy for the nation. The head urged these governments to take steps to build positive relations of confidence in international relations, which will contribute to the formation of positive relations between South Korea and Russia.

At the same time that the United States was trying to negotiate with Iran on a nuclear program, another issue arose that aroused concern about Iran’s intentions (FPB, 2012). A particular concern of the United Nations is concern about violations of Iran’s human rights against its own people (FBP, 2012). In 2012, Dr. Ahmed Shahid submitted to the US government report, citing numerous cases of the Iranian government, stunned Christians, women and minorities in Iran (FPB, 2012). The report also mentions that Iran was tortured by detainees by inhumane methods. The Iranian government strongly denied such acts, indicating that its national doctrine prohibits such behavior (FBP, 2012). Despite this doctrine, reports from Iranian citizens said that the Iranian government is cheating the world and could harm anyone who interferes with the agenda of the government of an Islamic state (FPB, 2012).

In assessing the Iranian government, it is necessary to take into account the current conflict in the Middle East and its impact on the future of Iran. Esfandiary and Tabatabai (2015) discuss the political advantage that Iran could gain from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as a terrorist group is moving in Iraq. Esfandiar and Tabatabai suggested that while Iran is not only taking action against ISIS, it has made several evasive provisions to discourage ISIS across the Iranian border. the unpopular campaign was given by Iran in Syria and limited resources, Esfandiari and Tabatabai (2015) offered Iran to withdraw its forces from Syria and focus on Iraq. Despite Iran’s reputation against isolation and disrespect for human rights, Iran has the potential to use the existence of ISIS as its own rise to power in the Middle East if they are able to effectively deal with terrorist sect (Esfandiary and Tabatabai, 2015) If Iran undertakes such actions, this could mean a significant change in power throughout the Middle East region (Esfandiary & Tabatabai, 2015). This energy growth could lead to future conflicts between Iran and Israel, given the long history of turbulence between the two countries (Esfandiary and Tabatabai, 2015). Whatever the motives of Iran if the government decides to take action against ISIS, which will directly affect relations between Iran and the United States and can change the issue of deception between the two governments on both sides (Esfandiary and Tabatabai, 2015).

Internet and Software Implications

Given the increase in virtual communication with an emphasis on the use of social networks in developed countries around the world, it is necessary to take into account the use of online fraud (Castelfranchi and Tan, 2002). In their article, Castelfranchi and Tan (2002) tried to understand the importance and necessity of trust, as well as the expulsion of deception in virtual communities. Given the evolution of artificial intelligence, researchers discussed the impact of human behavior and opinions on the development of fraud in the virtual arena (Castelfranchi & Tan, 2002). With the broad view of the hype with an individual basis to the global office of the countries of the virtual community of researchers discussed the social implications of public disappointment, supported by Internet media and accessible (Castelfranchi and Tan, 2002). Instead of embarking on a real research project comparing specific virtual communities, Castelfranchey and Tan (2002) decided to discuss the political and marketing impacts of the virtual world on society. This affects society’s increasing dependence on the Internet for information and relies less on standardized reference materials that include newspapers and even news stations (Castelfranchi and Tan, 2002).

Castelfranchi and Tan (2002) asked the audience to consider a variety of media platforms and historical data when forming an opinion about a person, product, company and beyond, because of mixed information and possible manipulation of the virtual world. Vitkauskaite (2016) supported these conclusions, saying that different motives for using social networks can lead to misleading behavior on the Internet. Huang and Yang (2013) also evaluated the results of Castelfranchi and Tan (2002), as they apply to Taiwanese adolescents using social networks. The findings of Huang and Yang (2013) also coincide with the conclusions of Castelfranche and Tan (2002).

According to Tsikerdekisu and Zaydalli (2014), understanding the motives and methods of online fraud – is the first line of the organization defending the threat. Focusing on social networks, Zikerdekis and Zeadally (2014) encourage Internet users to be aware of the type of social networks they use and where they use them because a place can make a person vulnerable. The researchers pointed out that in view of the disconnection of social media criminals have the advantage of changing their names, sex, age, and, in fact, all demographic data about themselves, without any kind of knowledge of the deceit (Tsikerdekis and Zeidal, 2014). Despite the possibility of changing these basic details in the Internet profile, the task facing the impostor is their own motives and expectations of deception. In other words, why they deceive the world and what they want to extract from these actions (Cicerdekis and Zaidal, 2014). Cikerdekis and Zikally (2014) found that the most common types of online deception are exaggeration, mimicry, white lies, evasion, and concealment. Cikerdekis and Zikally (2014) stated that the most difficult aspect of detecting deception is the fact that there is no standard theory applicable to such an act. Although Tsikerdekis and Chedalli (2014) tried to apply their research to some theories, there was no precise approach that emphasizes the fact that online hype is completely a problem that researchers should carefully consider. General guidelines for avoiding online deception include knowing who they are communicating with; not to disclose any frankly confidential information that could endanger their welfare, such as banking information or social security numbers; and ensure proper security on the device that is used to protect against phishing attacks or hackers in general (Tsikerdekis & Zeadally, 2014).

Since the Internet has become the main means of communication, the development of effective fraud detection software has become increasingly relevant (Baxter, 2012; Wagner, 2014). Wagner (2014) discussed the ability of computer software to analyze a person’s speech to detect cheating. This researcher has tested several programs to determine the overall effectiveness of such programming when deception is detected. Although the software is able to detect infections in the voices of people who might “trick” the software if a person was able to control the fluctuations in their voice (Wagner, 2014). Baxter (Baxter, 2012) also discusses the need to use more technology in fraud detection, concluding that technological progress can be found all cheaters, given the speed of advancement of software, but does not support the ability of people to promote your own fraud detection skill set

Twyman, Proudfoot, Schuetzler, Elkins, and Derrick (2015) tried to determine whether the new fraud detection software actually developed is as effective as it is offered. Using research on evidence-based concepts, researchers studied automated software systems (Twyman et al., 2015). In a controlled study we considered what is considered to be a three-part cheating support that is dilated, and ocular rigidity kinetic aversion (Twyman et al., 2015). The researchers also evaluated the details of the research, which consist of changes in vocal tone, intimacy, and facial expressions (Twyman et al., 2015). In general, researchers found that changes in pupil dilation and changes in voice tone are the most visible indicators of deception, and faster performance, the software detects (Twyman et al., 2015). Twyman et al. (2015) observed that software can replace the need for people search in the future, but only after extensive development that has the ability to analyze the cultural, physical and mental aspects of behavior (Twyman et al., 2015 ). Previous studies of emotion detection software with an emphasis on the possibility of fraud detection were carried out by Elkins, Burgungom, and Nunaykerom (2012), who gave similar results Twyman et al. (2015).

Partners, Body Language, and Acceptance

Chan and Bull (2014) studied the ability of criminals to cheat more effectively and commit crimes when working with partners. These researchers assessed the ability to be the best criminal if there is a group effort (Chan & Bull, 2014). Chan and Bull (2014) used 48 people and two teams of two. The researchers gave couples a false crime, which they had to perform (Chan & Bull, 2014). Chan and Bull (2014) studied pairs of verbal and nonverbal cues between them, the time required pairs to create and execute their plans, and the level of cognitive function was used among criminals to succeed in their chores Bull, 2014). Chan and Bull also provided groups with different time frames to plan their mafia crimes. Chan and Bull found that mafia criminals are more effective with a longer period of time provided for training; However, time did not affect the ability of the interpreters to control their verbal and non-verbal cues. None of them did affect the competent offender’s cognitive ability to carry out his plot, analyzing various approaches to fraud, including visual, verbal, psychological, and physiological cues (Kleinberg, Nahari, and Verschuere, 2016).

After determining the key factors in the misleading behavior of each respondent type, we recommend a more operational approach to the survey, to cheat deceptively quickly (Kleinberg et al., 2016). Their recommendations include presenting the facts of the incident and providing specific examples of others who were present during the event by probing the offender (Kleinberg et al., 2016). Kleinberg et al. (2016) suggested that pre-release information at the beginning of the interview will reduce the tendency of criminals to lie, as well as reduce the time needed in the interview process to obtain the desired information. Researchers recommend their findings as a way to reduce the time needed to conduct investigations, the depreciation method of fraud among criminals, and possibly a means to improve federal and state legal systems (Kleinberg et al. 2016). Smith and Bull (2014) and Granhag, Strömwall, Willén, and Hartwig (2013) corresponded and agreed with Kleinberg et al. (2016) is that providing objective information at the start of an interview will reduce the criminal’s inclination to cheat.

In contrast, Vartapetiance and Gillam (2012) provided evidence of failures in misleading research and made recommendations on the best ways to learn misleading behavior. These recommendations included consideration of cultural elements, stressors, and the environment during interrogations (Vartapetiance & Gillam, 2012). Vartapetiance and Gillam (2012) have argued that multiple variables may challenge the results of deception investigation and that additional means of control are necessary to achieve true fraud detection accuracy; However, the need for such controls affects the ability to perform such studies in real situations.

Leach et al. (2016) believe that the legal system of the United States testifies to the evidence without closing the person. This practice is especially important for Muslim women, which traditionally is niqab, which is a veil that covers the entire face, only visible eyes, or hijab, covering the entire head (Leach et al., 2016). Leach et al. It was tried to determine whether wearing the veil affects the ability of the jury to detect a lie or not because the logic of justice policy is that the ability to visualize the face of the person during the testimony helps determine if they are saying the truth. In two separate studies in which researchers had more than 200 participants per cohort, the researchers asked participants to determine who was lying, from interviews with three different women (Leach et al., 2016). A woman wore a niqab, a woman wore a hijab, and one wore no veil. Both cohorts had very similar results in that fraud detection would be more accurate in both covert and partially covert accounts, but the numbers were much lower for accuracy in the case of non-concealed (Leach et al., 2016). Leach et al. (2016) were unable to determine whether data received from cohorts, pay more attention to facial expressions, than tone, whether the cohort may have been more aware of the fluctuations and patterns of women covered by women, or whether the evidence of censorship against mistrust between the evening and not the veiled people. Leach et al., 2016 recognized that although the study results are important for the detection of public deception, more research is needed to determine what specifically affected the ability to detect cheating. Gillespie, Gibnerova, Esmark, and Noble (2016) sought to understand the feelings of deception from the client’s point of view. Gillespie et al (2016) conducted more than 50 interviews, in which researchers presented different scenarios to consumers. Scenarios include deliberate deception by companies, intentional deception by the company and what is required by the company for the continuation or termination of the business relationship (Gillespie et al., 2016). Gillespie et al. (2016) found that when customers felt that they were deliberately deceived, the most common response was the immediate cessation of business relationships. Researchers also found that when clients feel that they have been inadvertently deceived, clients not only forgive but also forced to initiate a conversation that would allow them to obtain some sort of discount or compensation for fraud (Gillespie et al., 2016). These data suggest that the company could intentionally lie to customers if the lying company has a plausible explanation for the fraud and offers some sort of compensation (Gillespie et al., 2016).

Law Enforcement Implications

Bogaard, Meijer, Vrij, and Merckelbach (2016) attempted to determine whether there was a difference in the detection of deception between a layman and a police officer. To carry out this study, the researchers conducted surveys of 105 college students and 85 police officers. All participants received the same survey that asked questions about behavior, body language, stereotypes and other factors that can be taken into account in determining who is telling the truth. Bogaard et al. (2016) found that both groups were consistent in their suspicions about common stereotypes. Bogaard et al. (2016) also found that both groups were suspected of all people with excessive body movement or restlessness and had an aversion to eye contact. In fact, students and police gave very similar results in their ability to determine whether or not someone lied to them, or at least they were consistent in their suspicions that they were being deceived (Bogaard et al., 2016).

In their analysis of two decades of empirical research, Fitzpatrick, Bachenko, and Vonnachari (2015) found that verbal and non-verbal clues could be found based on a criminal’s cultural past. The team analyzed reports from national security agencies, which included interviews with immigration officers and border patrol agents, where they were able to collect samples from individuals lying down (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015). Researchers studied videotapes of these interviews, which allowed researchers to also determine the physiological or nonverbal cues that were made when the respondent told a lie (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015). Expanding their own conclusions, Fitzpatrick et al. (2015) has developed recommendations for national security, police forces and security officers that should be considered when interrogating suspects in order to more effectively determine whether someone is lying down watching their body movements, and the curve of their voice, after completing the study, Fitzpatrick et al. (2015) made recommendations on the need for more specific cultural characteristics among countries.

Hwang and Matsumoto (2014) presented an interesting angle of cheating detection in this race, and culture can influence cheating detection capabilities. Hwang and Matsumoto (2014) studied the European group and the Asian group to determine which group had best discovered the lies between their group and the other group. Hwang and Matsumoto (2014) found that Europeans were better able to detect whether the Asian participant was lying than to discover the lies of their European fellow citizens. Europeans and Asians were more confident in finding a deception among their own ethnic group, although in fact, this did not affect their ability to determine who lies (Hwang & Matsumoto, 2014). Law enforcement authorities should take this value of false confidence into account when the interviewer and the interlocutor have the same nationality.

In another study by Sporer, Masip, and Cramer (2014), the researchers used the Aberdeen Report scoring scale to analyze fraud detection. Like Hwang and Matsumoto (2014), the researchers used two separate groups that judged each other about the ability to detect lies. Sporer et al. (2014) found that two determinants played a role in the detection of deception, which mainly used the Aberdeen judgment scale, which allowed the researchers to organize an organized approach to the interviews and, second, questions to clarify the information and the ability to observe the suspects gave greater precision in the detection of fraud (Sporer et al., 2014).

Li and Chung (2014) sought to determine whether the ability to learn to identify fraud with genetics is related. After analyzing several studies with identical twins, Lee and Chung (2014) concluded that there is a link between the ability to deceive and genetics. In their own experiment, the researchers studied 192 sets of twins, two-thirds of whom were identical twins, and one-third of them were twin siblings (Lee & Chung, 2014). After several trials with twins, Lee and Chung (2014) concluded that the ability to detect cheating is more associated with environmental factors such as distractions, noise, and actions, attitude toward genetics.

Hauch, Sporast, Michael, and Meisner (2016) tried to determine if people could more often identify someone who was telling the truth or someone who was lying. In carrying out this study, Hauch et al. (2016) asked participants to identify verbal and nonverbal cues that made them believe or disbelieve the speaker. In general, researchers found that people are more likely to perceive signs of verbal and non-verbal verisimilitude than misleading signals (Hauch et al., 2016). These stories of veracity included eye contact, confidence in conversation, hand gestures, and fluctuations in vocal tone (Hauch et al., 2016).

McQuaid, Woodworth, Hatton, Porter, and Brinke (2015) also attempted to determine the existence of verbal cues from misleading individuals. Using W matrix’s linguistic analysis, the researchers evaluated 78 people interviewed who advocated for the return of the missing loved one in television interviews. Researchers discovered the patterns of choice of words and strains of people who were actually responsible for the disappearance of their loved one. McQuaid et al. (2015) also found that people who spoke the truth were more likely to present specific dates and details in their interviews. These people often act in a more representative way on behalf of their families and friends. Criminals are more likely to speak individually and give vague interviews with limited details (McQuaid et al., 2015).

Rahimi and Goli (2016) attempted to understand the attitude and motivation of students by cheating their programs in English as a foreign language (EFL). The researchers interviewed 800 high school students. Each student completed two interviews that analyzed their feelings for learning a foreign language, academic honesty and academic success in the form of a high score (Rahimi and Goli, 2016). The results of the study showed that at an international level, EFL students were five times more likely to lie and cheat English or any other language that was not common among their peers. Recognizing their own advanced ability to communicate, students could trick their peers and authorized personalities if they thought they could benefit from such actions (Rahimi & Goli, 2016).

Duñabeitia and Costa (2015) discussed the common signs of lying in a foreign language. Among these common indicators is the lack of detail, shame or disorientation, as well as the idea that the speaker does not know a specific word or understand a particular concept (Duñabeitia & Costa, 2015). All these factors helped the interpreters to present themselves as children or ignorant and, therefore, trustworthy (Duñabeitia & Costa, 2015).

Villar, Arciuli, and Paterson (2013) conducted an experiment in which researchers gave people false scenarios and then recorded participants’ responses. The investigators told each participant a lie and instructed them to retell the lie as if it were true. Prior to recording, all participants completed surveys that determined who was morally against lying and who was not morally against lying (Villar et al., 2013). After the recordings were completed, the researchers found a connection between those who refute the lies and a noticeable increase in the pitch of their voice when they tell lies (Villar et al., 2013).

A common practice among law enforcement officers to interrogate witnesses is to use a strategy called cognitive interviewing (Logue, Book, Frosina, Huizinga, & Amos, 2015). Logue et al. attempted to test the efficacy of the cognitive interview with suspects in order to detect cheating. Logue et al. (2015) combined this survey method with the concept of reality monitoring Vrij et al. (2008). The researchers divided 166 college students into two groups. Both groups participated in a game-like scenario, but one group stole $ 10 from a competitor and the second group did not steal $ 10, although researchers told this group that money was lacking (Logue et al., 2015). Another researcher, blind, to what scenario they were, then interrogated all participants using the cognitive survey process (Logue et al., 2015). At the end of the interview, the researchers analyzed data from blind researchers. The interviewer was able to identify 86% of participants (Logue et al., 2015). These investigators did not take gender or ethnic identity into account when selecting study participants (Logue et al., 2015). The authors recommended that future scientists evaluate these results in terms of ethnicity and gender to assess the effectiveness of this strategy when interviewing terrorism suspects (Logue et al., 2015).

DesJardins and Hodges (2015) tried to understand the influence of empathy on a person’s ability to detect cheating. In the course of the study, the researchers tested the ability of 95 participants to perceive if they had heard a lie. For half of the participants, the researchers indicated that they suspect dishonesty in the person with whom they were preparing to communicate (DesJardins & Hodges, 2015). The other party did not receive such a directive. Researchers have instructed people who are interested in talking to participants, being emotional and exaggerated in their conversation (DesJardins & Hodges, 2015). Eventually, DesJardins and Hodges (2015) found that the participants were able to discover the truth of the liar in their discussions and assumed the relevant emotions that corresponded to the conversation. Participants who were not directed to the suspicion of lying were more sensitive to the person they spoke to and more accurate in their assessments (DesJardins & Hodges, 2015).

Fenn, McGuire, Langben, and Blandon-Gitlin (2015) attempted to determine whether the sequence of interviews influences the ability to determine the intentions of the gravitas of liars. Fenn et al. (2015) carried out two sets of interviews, giving true readers an inverse order interview, which increases the respondent’s stress and gives regular and consistent interviews with liars. During the interviews, the external parties observed how the interviewee determines who is truthful and who lied and took into account the nature that helped them make their judgments. Fenn et al. (2015) reported two important findings. First, the participants were not able to identify the intentions of the true respondents of the false respondents under the given conditions (Fenn et al., 2015). Secondly, in the reverse order, the more tense interviews, true respondents showed more misleading behaviors, which made them think they were lying (Fenn et al., 2015). The consequences of this study showed that under stressful conditions it would be impossible for a person to determine if a person is telling the truth or the lie (Fenn et al., 2015).

Morris et al. (2016) tried to determine which relationships affect the ability to detect the deception of a friend or a close person. It is well known that the more two people know each other, the better they become the detection of deception, but there has been no research to determine whether this ability is to detect deception based on an emotional connection or to monitor another person’s behavior (Morris et al. 2016). The researchers used 45 groups of friends in their study (Morris et al., 2016). The researchers pointed out that a friend of each pair was a “sender” and a friend as a “receiver”. The researchers filmed videos that showed real and false emotions in video clips and asked the recipients to watch the videotape and determine which of their friends ‘reactions were real and false’ (Morris et al., 2016). The researchers then asked the receivers to view the video of the stranger and determine which reactions were real and which were false (Morris et al., 2016). Receptors were very accurate in finding genuine friends of genuine reactions, and the accuracy of this detection showed an increase, related to how long the friends knew each other; The longer they became friends, the better the detection (Morris et al., 2016). However, none of the receptors could accurately detect the reactions of strangers (Morris et al., 2016).

Culhane, Kehn, Hatz, and Hildebrand (2015) examined three aspects of fraud detection in one study, using the tricks paradigm to see if it is possible to combine aspects and create a joint advantage. The researchers compared judgments about dyads and individuals in assessing the validity of the statement (Culhane et al., 2015). The researchers then evaluated the effect of a real transgression against a false transgression on the ability of participants to determine reality from a forgery (Culhane et al., 2015). Finally, the researchers evaluated the impact of audio and video on sound on the ability of participants to determine the real from a false scenario (Culhane et al., 2015). Culhane et al. (2015) found that the most accurate results were when the participants discovered real disturbances in sound-only conditions. Culhane et al. (2015) also found that working with dyads did not affect the results.

Debi, Lifkhoe, De Uuver and Vershuer (2015) studied the effect of changing between the lie and truthfulness of human response time. In two groups, Debey et al. investigated participants’ reaction time to respond to questions with real and false answers or respond honestly to autobiographical questions. Debey et al. (2015) found that participants needed the same amount of reaction time to switch between lying truth and lies to truth. The researchers pointed out that between truth and truth requires less reaction time, lies and lies. The slower reaction time during the study was consistent throughout the study (Debey et al., 2015). The researchers recommended that law enforcement agencies evaluate the results of a study on the applicability of results to interview witnesses and suspects (Debey et al., 2015).

As in the previous study, Van Bokstaele, Wilhelm, Meyer, Debi, and Vershour (2015) attempted to explore the relationship between cheating and reaction time. Van Bockstaele et al. (2015) suggests that the more a person lies, the faster the reaction time. In two experiments, in which 121 participants participated, and the second – 68 participants, the researchers asked a series of questions to the participants. The researchers first evaluated the participants for their ability to consistently change between lies and truth. The investigators then tested the participants at the time of their reaction, when the lie was accompanied by random, true answers. Van Bockstaele et al. (2015) found that participants were significantly faster in their reaction time when lying down at the same time, and became faster when they continued responding. Van Bockstaele et al. (2015) recommend the use of their results for standardized lie detector tests. In doing so, they recommend that basically truthful responses be called from basic information to help continue basic velocity, which should only show an interruption when the suspect begins to lie (Van Bockstaele et al., 2015).

Vecina, Chacón, and Pérez-Viejo (2016) classified men with a violent history between the ages of 30 and 39 years. The researchers evaluated these men in an attempt to understand the psychological community of men who played a role in each: the justification of violence against women (Vecina et al., 2016). Vecina et al. (2016) found that all men pointed to signs of absolutism in their excuses, which eliminated any sense of moral abuse or remorse. The researchers compared the behavior of these men to the second group of men in the same age group with no history of violence. The results of this study showed that the nature of absolutism that law enforcement agents can observe when interrogating terrorist suspects (Vecina et al., 2016).

Summary

In this review of the literature, the researcher presented several studies that support the need for cultural understanding when considering models and methods for detecting verbal deception. Given the concern about Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East, the researcher used Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimension theory to analyze the historical significance of Iran, marked by the characteristics of the Iranian population, the effects of the national religion of Islam, the historical and current relationship between Iran and the United States, and approaches to people who are interviewing compatible, who are of interest, to get real reports.

An analysis of the nature of the lie showed that deception begins at school age as a form of survival and social adaptation (Lee, 2013). Several researchers have pointed out that nationality can play a role in the acceptance and usefulness of deception among children. This is evidenced by the data of Dmytro et al. (2014) in which the authors showed that Canadian children are morally opposed to lying, which could have a negative impact on someone but took a lie that has been mutually beneficial to the population. The same study found that Chinese children have used deception as a means of self-sacrifice, and are not associated with side effects that deception can bring on itself (Dmytro et al., 2014).

An additional survey of children shows that children who are regularly deceived by adults model this behavior. The more examples children get from cheating from adult role models, the greater the likelihood of continuing that behavior in their daily interactions (Hays and Carver, 2014). Despite the frequency of lying in their daily lives, Lingvud and Bull (2013) found that during an interrogation of adolescent children they were more likely to be truthful if they faced the charge tests from the beginning of the interrogation. Children who experienced no charge test are likely to be false witnesses were questioned and are more likely to adhere to their lies, once charges were finally presented (Lingwood and Bull, 2013).

The researcher also discussed the concept of virtual deception. Social media is the most common platform for online deception (Tsikerdekis & Zeadally, 2014). There are limited studies in which researchers have demonstrated an effective method for detecting online deception; However, these investigators made several recommendations to protect themselves from fraud. The recommendations include security devices that prevent phishing and hackers from adding, simply sharing information with people with whom you have had a previous face-to-face with it, and never providing any confidential banking or personally identifiable information (Tsikerdekis and Zeadally, 2014). The present investigator then examined the software efficiency for current detection and the pros and cons of such interfaces (Baxter, 2012; Twyman et al, 2015, Wagner, 2014).

The researcher told about the influence of historical Iran, which has to do with how it shaped the current culture. The researcher used the masculine and individualistic aspects of Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimension theory to the Iranian Social Dynamics, which includes studies demonstrating that the initial assessment of Iran Hofstede (2011) is now valid because of changes within the cultures of nations (Mardani et al, 2013, Saboori et al., 2013). Researchers examined the question of how these dynamics affect daily life in Iran in relation to work ethics, the interaction between men and women, and the total (Saboori et al, 2015) the location of the Iranian people. The researcher presented the discussion to illustrate the effects of an integral Islamic tradition for the daily interaction of the Iranian people and Iran’s absolute refusal to accept Western culture (Zabardast, 2015).

The researcher then explored the relationship between Iran and the United States, focusing on examples of tension and deception between the two governments. The researchers reviewed numerous examples of how Iran is cheating the United States of America, the United States lied to Iran, the United States lied to its own citizens and the government, as well as failed attempts to work with Iran on behalf of the state, which has a negative impact on the United States (Gilbert 2014; RAHAGHI, 2012, Stephens, 2012). The researcher presented a discussion of Iran’s possible motives for assisting the United States in dissolving ISIS (Esfandiary & Tabatabai, 2015).

Given the extensive literature that illustrates effective and ineffective methods of detecting verbal deception, it is clear that it is possible to teach the detection of verbal deception. The study bodies also illustrated that it is necessary to understand the culture of the deceiver to determine what is going on in the deception. In Western culture, it is possible to identify common features in the evaluation of verbal and nonverbal actions. The same theory holds true for people who do not belong to Western cultures, but each culture has its own characteristics that must be evaluated and disseminated. Nahari, Vriem, and Fisher (2014) analyzed patterns in written reports of truthful and misleading facts and established a framework for determining truth from lies in written language. This is one of the few studies that can be transmitted and used in all languages. This will require additional research with non-English speakers.

Despite many studies that judge deception, there are no studies in which researchers examined the actual verbal characteristics of Iranian deception when working with external cultures. Several researchers have analyzed Iranian culture and interpersonal relationships among Iranians (Aslani et al, 2013, Bucar, 2012, El-Bassiouny, 2014, Pishghadam and Meidani, 2012). In addition, the researchers carried out a series of studies that analyze the detection of fraud in cultures around the world, but the current researcher found studies that focused specifically on the discovery of Iranian verbal deception. In Chapter 3, the researcher will provide detailed information on how to achieve the goal and bridge the gap established in this chapter.