Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Behavioral Indicators of Dominance in an Adversarial Group Negotiation Game

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Detecting Trust and Deception in Group Interaction

Part of the book series: Terrorism, Security, and Computation ((TESECO))

Abstract

Adversarial group negotiations often involve contentious strategies such as deception and dominance. Understanding characteristics of language and voice associated with deception and dominance helps negotiators identify the use of these strategies and achieve higher self-interests in various use cases, including business negotiations and law enforcement. We aim to expand traditional research on these characteristics from dyadic interactions to group communication. This study follows the same group experiment, a modified Mafia game, as described in the other chapters. Linguistic and vocalic features were extracted from the recorded audio files, and several models were built to examine the predictors of perceived dominance and deceptive cues. Our results show that some features are significantly correlated with dominance as suggested by the existing research, such as lower fundamental frequency, greater variability in loudness, higher voice quality, longer turn-at-talk duration, larger dominance ratio and a greater number of words. However, some features turn out not to be significantly correlated with dominance, such as mean level of loudness, polarity of emotions, hedging ratio and disfluency ratio, though the existing research predicts these relationships. Among our explored features, only turn-at-talk duration is significantly correlated with deceptive status. Our research shows preliminary evidence for the similarities and differences of signals of dominance and deception in dyads and groups and has implications for negotiators in real life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alam, F., & Riccardi, G. (2014). Fusion of acoustic, linguistic and psycholinguistic features for speaker personality traits recognition. In 2014 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) (pp. 955–959). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2014.6853738.

  • Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1369–1397. https://doi.org/10.5465/257037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Báles, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461–468. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayestehtashk, A., Asgari, M., Shafran, I., & McNames, J. (2015). Fully automated assessment of the severity of Parkinson’s disease from speech. Computer Speech & Language, 29, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSL.2013.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, K. L., & Holtgraves, T. M. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bone, D., Lee, C.-C., Black, M. P., Williams, M. E., Lee, S., Levitt, P., & Narayanan, S. (2014). The psychologist as an interlocutor in autism spectrum disorder assessment: Insights from a study of spontaneous prosody. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 57, 1162. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-13-0062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borkowska, B., & Pawlowski, B. (2011). Female voice frequency in the context of dominance and attractiveness perception. Animal Behaviour, 82, 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. L., Strong, W. J., & Rencher, A. C. (1973). Perceptions of personality from speech: Effects of manipulations of acoustical parameters. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., & Aune, R. K. (1987). Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., Buslig, A. L., & Roiger, J. F. (1994). Interpersonal deception VIII: Further analysis of nonverbal and verbal correlates of equivocation from the Bavelas et al.(1990) research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 396–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K. (2005). The future of motivated deception and its detection. Annals of the International Communication Association, 29, 49–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00229.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communications Monographs, 65, 308–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2009). Nonverbal communication. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Mayew, W. J., Giboney, J. S., Elkins, A. C., Moffitt, K., Dorn, B., Byrd, M., & Spitzley, L. (2016). Which spoken language markers identify deception in high-stakes settings? Evidence from earnings conference calls. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35, 123–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Harper + Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Ho, S., & Henrich, J. (2016). Listen, follow me: Dynamic vocal signals of dominance predict emergent social rank in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. L., Cash, D., & Muller, M. J. (2000). Designing to support adversarial collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, CSCW ‘00 (pp. 31–39). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.358948.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589.

  • Dhall, A., Ramana Murthy, O. V., Goecke, R., Joshi, J., & Gedeon, T. (2015). Video and image based emotion recognition challenges in the wild: Emotiw 2015. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on international conference on multimodal interaction (pp. 423–426). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Theory in progress: Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and cues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, A. C., Derrick, D. C., & Gariup, M. (2012). The voice and eye gaze behavior of an imposter: Automated interviewing and detection for rapid screening at the border. In Proceedings of the workshop on computational approaches to deception detection, EACL 2012 (pp. 49–54). Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyben, F., Weninger, F., Gross, F., & Schuller, B. (2013). Recent developments in openSMILE, the Munich open-source multimedia feature extractor. Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 835–838. https://doi.org/10.1145/2502081.2502224.

  • Fiscus, J. G. (1997). A post-processing system to yield reduced word error rates: Recognizer output voting error reduction (ROVER). In 1997 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding proceedings. Presented at the 1997 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding proceedings (pp. 347–354). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASRU.1997.659110.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., Jay, F., & Nunamaker, J. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/256377.

  • Giles, H., & Baker, S. C. (2008). Communication accommodation theory. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. Chichester: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecc067.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, G. A., Stoner, J. S., Brouer, R. L., & George, J. F. (2007). The influences of deception and computer-mediation on dyadic negotiations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00329.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, A. (1981). Group size. American Behavioral Scientist, 24, 695–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauch, V., Blandon-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 307–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T. M., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 196–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifies: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1989.tb00190.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. M., Mogilski, J. K., & Harrison, M. A. (2014). The perception and parameters of intentional voice manipulation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-013-0163-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H., Jayagopi, D. B., Ba, S., Odobez, J.-M., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2008). Investigating automatic dominance estimation in groups from visual attention and speaking activity. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on multimodal interfaces, ICMI ‘08 (pp. 233–236). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1452392.1452441.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hutto, C. J., & Gilbert, E. E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. Presented at the eighth international conference on weblogs and social media. Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • IBM. (2018). Watson speech to text. International Business Machines (IBM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Itakura, H. (2001). Conversational dominance and gender: A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jayagopi, D. B., Hung, H., Yeo, C., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2009). Modeling dominance in group conversations using nonverbal activity cues. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 17, 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2008.2008238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Q., Li, C., Chen, S., & Wu, H. (2015). Speech emotion recognition with acoustic and lexical features. In 2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) (pp. 4749–4753). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2015.7178872.

  • Juslin, P. N., & Scherer, K. R. (2005). Vocal expression of affect. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), New handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 65–135). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelleher, J. (2000). Review of traditional and collaborative models for negotiation. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 29, 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45–79.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P., Gustavsson, L., & Juvonen, P. (1988). Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: A presentation of initiative-response analysis. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marett, L. K., & George, J. F. (2004). Deception in the case of one sender and multiple receivers. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011943.73672.9b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mast, M. S. (2002). Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time. Human Communication Research, 28, 420–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00814.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, P. D., & Landers, D. M. (1976). Size of audience and social facilitation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 1067–1070. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1976.42.3c.1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A. (1971). Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5, 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A., & Williams, M. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MigdaÅ‚, P. (2010). A mathematical model of the Mafia game. arXiv:1009.1031 [physics].

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffitt, K.C., & Giboney, J. (2011). Structured Programming for Linguistic Cue Extraction (SPLICE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research, 41, 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, I. R., & Arnott, J. L. (1993). Toward the simulation of emotion in synthetic speech: A review of the literature on human vocal emotion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.405558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measure. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oade, A. (2011). What is an adversarial working relationship? In A. Oade (Ed.), Working in adversarial relationships: Operating effectively in relationships characterized by little trust or support (pp. 1–16). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292390_1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oster, A., & Risberg, A. (1986). The identification of the mood of a speaker by hearing impaired listeners. SLT-Quarterly Progress Status Report, 4, 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, A. (2004). Social dynamics: Signals and behavior. In Proceedings of the third international conference on developmental learning (ICDL’04) (pp. 263–267). Salk Institute, San Diego. UCSD Institute for Neural Computation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. The American Behavioral Scientist (pre-1986); Thousand Oaks, 27, 167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A., Gaulin, S. J., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A., Hodges, C. R., Cárdenas, R. A., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2007). Men’s voices as dominance signals: Vocal fundamental and formant frequencies influence dominance attributions among men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 340–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockwell, P., Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1997). Measurement of deceptive voices: Comparing acoustic and perceptual data. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 18, 471–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rude, S., Gortner, E.-M., & Pennebaker, J. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Cortes, D., Aran, O., Jayagopi, D. B., Schmid Mast, M., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2013). Emergent leaders through looking and speaking: From audio-visual data to multimodal recognition. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 7, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-012-0101-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, M. E., DeChurch, L. A., & Gibson, D. E. (2005). Conflict frames and the use of deception: Are competitive negotiators less ethical? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2123–2149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02212.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 20, 421–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research, handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E. J., & Fink, C. F. (1963). Effects of group size. Psychological Bulletin, 60, 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twyman, N. W., Proudfoot, J. G., Schuetzler, R. M., Elkins, A. C., & Derrick, D. C. (2015). Robustness of multiple indicators in automated screening systems for deception detection. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32, 215–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1138569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23, 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernham, Z., Granhag, P.-A., & Giolla, E. M. (2016). Detecting deception within small groups: A literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01012.

  • Vinciarelli, A., & Mohammadi, G. (2014). A survey of personality computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5, 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2014.2330816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 141–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisfeld, G. E., & Linkey, H. E. (1985). Dominance displays as indicators of a social success motive. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 109–128). New York: Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5106-4_6.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. D. (2010). Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small Group Research, 41, 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409358619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H.-L., & Tang, J.-H. (2003). Effects of social network on students’ performance: A web-based forum study in Taiwan. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social Facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, L., & Zhang, D. (2006). A comparison of deception behavior in dyad and triadic group decision making in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 37, 140–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Twitchell, D. (2004a). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communications. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2004b). Language dominance in interpersonal deception in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 381–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and non-verbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (pp. 1–59). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Army Research Office for funding much of the work reported in this book under Grant W911NF-16-1-0342.

Funding Disclosure

This research was sponsored by the Army Research Office and was accomplished under Grant Number W911NF-16-1-0342. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Office or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

    Steven J. Pentland

  2. University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    Lee Spitzley

  3. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Xunyu Chen, Xinran (Rebecca) Wang, Judee K. Burgoon & Jay F. Nunamaker

Authors
  1. Steven J. Pentland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lee Spitzley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xunyu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xinran (Rebecca) Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Judee K. Burgoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jay F. Nunamaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee Spitzley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    V. S. Subrahmanian

  2. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Judee K. Burgoon

  3. Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Norah E. Dunbar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pentland, S.J., Spitzley, L., Chen, X., (Rebecca) Wang, X., Burgoon, J.K., Nunamaker, J.F. (2021). Behavioral Indicators of Dominance in an Adversarial Group Negotiation Game. In: Subrahmanian, V.S., Burgoon, J.K., Dunbar, N.E. (eds) Detecting Trust and Deception in Group Interaction. Terrorism, Security, and Computation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54383-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54383-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54382-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54383-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation