PREVALENCE OF LYING AMONG GENDER

By

Kingsley, Kingsmond Ehimare


Organisational Behaviour (OB)
Department of Business Administration
Faculty of Business Administration
University of Lagos, Nigeria.


Abstract
The question of prevalence remains without a clear, well-documented answer. Thus,
This research tends to investigates and reports how often male and female lie.
In order to study the prevalence of lying among gender, it is necessary to consider what constitutes a lie. Simply and broadly put, lying occurs when a communicator seeks knowingly and intentionally to mislead others. Ford, King, and Hollender (1988) suggest the ‘‘consciousness of falsity’’ to distinguish ‘‘normal’’ lies from pathological ones. Thus, it is not sufficient that something is false for it to be a lie; it is the intent that distinguishes the lie. As Bok (1999) observes: ‘‘the moral question of whether you are lying or not is not settled by establishing the truth or falsity of what you say.
In order to settle this question, this research paper will lead us to see if female as they say actually lies more than male.

Chapter one
1.1 Brief Background of the Study
A study of deceitful behaviour on the internet made the surprising finding that women lie almost twice as much as men in social media posts. The reason women lie is less surprising, if you believe in gender stereotypes: women tell porkies to make other people look good. Men do it to make themselves look good. The Works Sydney advertising agency working with Dr Suresh Sood, a brand data scientist at the UTS Business School, sought to go deeper than the widely known truth: that without the sweaty palms and facial tics to give them away, everyone lies on the internet, whether about their age, their marital status, their resume or just the all-out envy-making marvelousness of their lives. The researchers analysed hundreds of thousands of public posts on Facebook, Twitter, TripAdvisor and Instagram. They used a "deceit algorithm" which scores posts for truthfulness based on tell-tale words and emoticons.
For example, people are less likely to lie if they use pronouns like "I", "me" or "we" because "we subconsciously distance ourselves from what we know to be a lie." On the other hand an emoticon with a winking face or dark glasses might be a mark against credibility. They then compared the results according to gender, location and nationality. They found that 64 per cent of lies come from women compared with 36 per cent for men. Sydney men are the most deceitful on Facebook while Australian women punch above their weight in posting deceitful reviews on TripAdvisor, "in the quest to maybe get free upgrades or gifts". The research drew a distinction between white lies or "embellishment", and "true" lies, meaning straight out deceit.

It concluded people tell white lies to gain the approval of their social network, to manage their personal brand, to make a good story an amazing story, and to have their ego stroked publicly. They told out and out lies to get free stuff or privileges from brands, to gain social power, to elevate their importance and to protect themselves. But some people were deceiving themselves, too and were unaware that they were lying, the researchers said. Dr Sood said the deceit was part of "natural human behaviour". He said people often put themselves into a "hero" narrative. This demanded that they battled the odds and overcame adversity, even if they were just going to the shops. For example, they might exaggerate their difficulties in opening the packaging of a particular brand, because "they have to make a hero story even bigger than it really was". The Works agency said the research was meant to help marketers get over their fear of social media. They said the deceit algorithm was not foolproof in identifying untruth, but claimed it performed "much better" than the average human who can only spot 54 per cent of deceitful content.
A 2009 promotional poll by Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment of 2000 Britons found men told twice as many lies as women (six a day compared with three). The most common lie told by both sexes was "Nothing's wrong, I'm fine".
If, as the cliché has it, the 1980s was the decade of greed, then the quintessential sin of the 1990s might just have been lying. After all, think of the accusations of deceit leveled at politicians like Bob Packwood, Marion Barry, Dan Rostenkowski, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Clinton. And consider the top-level Texaco executives who initially denied making racist comments at board meetings; the young monk who falsely accused Cardinal Bernardin of molestation; Susan Smith, the white woman who killed her young boys and blamed a black man for it; and Joe Klein, the Newsweek columnist who adamantly swore for months that he had nothing to do with his anonymously-published novel Primary Colors. Even Hollywood noticed our apparent deception obsession: witness films like Quiz Show, True Lies, The Crucible, Secrets & Lies, and Liar, Liar.
Leonard Saxe, Ph.D., a polygraph expert and professor of psychology at Brandeis University, says, "Lying has long been a part of everyday life. We couldn't get through the day without being deceptive." Yet until recently lying was almost entirely ignored by psychologists, leaving serious discussion of the topic in the hands of ethicists and theologians. Freud wrote next to nothing about deception; even the 1500-page Encyclopedia of Psychology, published in 1984, mentions lies only in a brief entry on detecting them. But as psychologists delve deeper into the details of deception, they're finding that lying is a surprisingly common and complex phenomenon.
For starters, the work by Bella DePaulo, Ph.D., a psychologist at the University of Virginia, confirms Nietzche's assertion that the lie is a condition of life. In a 1996 study, DePaulo and her colleagues had 147 people between the ages of 18 and 71 keep a diary of all the falsehoods they told over the course of a week. Most people, she found, lie once or twice a day—almost as often as they snack from the refrigerator or brush their teeth. Both men and women lie in approximately a fifth of their social exchanges lasting 10 or more minutes; over the course of a week they deceive about 30 percent of those with whom they interact one-on-one. Furthermore, some types of relationships, such as those between parents and teens, are virtual magnets for deception: "College students lie to their mothers in one out of two conversations," reports DePaulo. (Incidentally, when researchers refer to lying, they don't include the mindless pleasantries or polite equivocations we offer each other in passing, such as "I'm fine, thanks" or "No trouble at all." An "official" lie actually misleads, deliberately conveying a false impression. So complimenting a friend's awful haircut or telling a creditor that the check is in the mail both qualify.) Saxe points out that most of us receive conflicting messages about lying. Although we're socialized from the time we can speak to believe that it's always better to tell the truth, in reality society often encourages and even rewards deception. Show up late for an early morning meeting at work and it's best not to admit that you overslept. "You're punished far more than you would be if you lie and say you were stuck in traffic," Saxe notes. Moreover, lying is integral to many occupations. Think how often we see lawyers constructing far-fetched theories on behalf of their clients or reporters misrepresenting themselves in order to gain access to good stories. Dishonesty also pervades our romantic relationships, as you might expect from the titles of books like 101 Lies Men Tell Women (Harper Collins), by Missouri psychologist Dory Hollander, Ph.D. (Hollander's nomination for the #1 spot: "I'll call you." Eighty-five percent of the couples interviewed in a 1990 study of college students reported that one or both partners had lied about past relationships or recent indiscretions. And DePaulo finds that dating couples lie to each other in about a third of their interactions—perhaps even more often than they deceive other people.

1.2 Statement of the Problem[b][/b]
I interact with over 20 friends both married and singles to really ascertain if men lie than women or the revised case. Lying is a part of larger society just the way men and women are, so this work faced and tend to find who among genders (Male and Female) lies more.
Have any of you watched this revolting thing? We’ve caught glimpses of it in teasers while we watch other Fox shows we like, including Idle American (my husband’s one-liner) or The Sarah Connor Chronicles. It’s a reality-slash-game show that sort of resembles the pajama-party game Truth or Dare, except without the dare part, and with lie detectors. The motive: a pot of cash.
Lauren Cleri, 26, admitted on air she had cheated on her NYPD cop husband and preferred an ex-boyfriend. But she failed a polygraph, and lost $200,000, by answering “yes” when asked if she believed she was a good person. Does lying make a person a bad one?
The Post, being the Post, decided this was a good reason to call upon a lying expert named Susan Shapiro Barash, author of a book, Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets: The Truth About Why Women Lie. According to her research, conducted on 500 women she found on Craig’s List,
• 75 percent lie about how much money they spend. For instance, they sneak purchases inside their homes after shopping or hide the price tags.
• 50 percent harbor “mixed feelings about mothering.” One told Barash, “I look at these children and I crave sleep and free time. They wear me out and make me jealous of working women who have no children, no husbands.”
• More than 60 percent cheated on their husbands. A 32-year-old mother conducted her trysts while telling her trusting husband she was working late. Even in asking for a divorce, she withheld the truth: “I didn’t say I had fallen for another man. He was better off with my lies.”
Okay. I have such a problem with each of these so-called findings. That three-fourths of us lie to our husbands about how much we shop assumes three-fourths of us are living off our hubbies’ income, don’t you think? …which simply doesn’t hold up to Census figures that show 77% of adult women work.
Secondly: so half of women say they have mixed feelings about parenting. What does that have to do with lying? I’d venture to say all parents have mixed feelings about parenting; who can summon up cheer and joy when we’re about to leave for work and the kid decides to start a paintball fight in the playroom?
As for the last, I just don’t believe it. Other surveys don’t support it, either. This from MSNBC.com:
About one in five adults in monogamous relationships, or 22 percent, have cheated on their current partner. The rate is even higher among married men. Does this means they have to lie to cover their shame.
So what, you ask, makes the Post conclude from all this that women are liars? I haven’t the foggiest. The fact is, we all lie—including at work. According to studies by actual lying expert Bella DePaulo, Ph.D., described in Psychology Today.

........................................................................................................................................................

Hi there, I’m Kingsley, Kingsmond Ehimare (Dip., B.Sc., M.Sc., AHR.) Business-strategic Psychologist, Business cognitive Coach.
...........................................................................................................................................................
Ps: Please feel free to contact me for your research, assignments, free contributor on: kingsmond.com1@gmail.com; instagram:kcmond & twitter:@kingsmond.com

http://www.kingsmond..com
https://web.facebook.com/kingsmond/
http://twitter.com/kingsmond_com
https://instagram.com/kcmond

1.3 Research Question
Male and female who lies most?
Ultimately, does gender has anything to do with lies?

1.4 Objectives of the research
The objectives of this research include:
a. To find out if females actually lie more than males as stated by the research problem
b. To determines the reasons behind lies
c. To ascertain the environmental forces influencing lies
d. To see if everyone actually tell lies
e. To examine if telling lies is generic or pathological
1.5 Relevance of the Study
1. Serves as a guide and literature review especially in this part of the world, reason being that there are very few literature reviews on this subject matter in Nigeria particularly.
2. This enable us to know if females actually lie more than males and the reasons behind the lies telling
3. It will be relevant for other researchers to draw references on and build upon


Chapter Two
2.1 Literature Review:
This chapter contains a lot of other people’s works, this allow us to know what they have said about the subject in question. These will enable me to either adopt or adapt to either of their works in regard to the research paper.
Bok (1999) argues for the principle of veracity that involves a moral asymmetry between honesty and lies. Lying requires justification, whereas truth telling does not.
Given prohibitions against deceit, people may try to avoid situations in which there is pressure to lie. Research finds that this principle of veracity guides everyday communication and people consider using deception only when the truth is problematic
(Levine, Kim, & Hamel, 2009). But this tells us about the situations in which people lie and not how often people lie.
Despite this moral asymmetry, most deception research has presumed the ubiquity of lying and moved past the question of frequency to focus on the behavioral correlates of lying or lie detection. The frequency question remains mostly unanswered. A notable exception, and the best and most cited prevalence research, however, is the 1996 diary study of lying in everyday life by DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, and Epstein (1996). Using two small samples, students and recruited members of the local community, DePaulo et al. reported the mean number of lies per day as 1.96 (SD=1.63, N= 77) for the students and 0.97 (SD = 0. 98, N =70) for the subsequent nonstudent sample. Importantly, the aim of the second sample was to replicate findings regarding the nature and reasons for lying with a different but not necessarily representative sample of the population. Nonetheless, a brief synopsis of this study in Psychology Today (‘‘The Real Truth About Lying,’’ 1996) reported that DePaulo conducted research to answer the question ‘‘how often do people lie...?’’ and in many subsequent research reports the finding that people tell one to two lies per day has been reified.
More recently, two smaller and lesser-known studies have sought to replicate and extend elements of the DePaulo et al. (1996) diary study. Hancock, Thom-Santelli, and Ritchie (2004) examined differences between reports of face-to-face lies and reports of lying through computer-mediated communication. Results from a student sample yielded an average of 1.58 lies per day (SD = 1 . 02, N = 28) and a significant difference for the rates of lying (lies as a proportion of interactions) between face-to- face, telephone, instant message, and e-mail interactions; the highest rates occurred during phone conversations and the lowest rates with e-mail. George and Robb
(2008) replaced the pencil-and-paper diary with a personal digital assistant (PDA).
They report fewer lies per day; M = 0. m59 (SD =0 . 37, N = 25) with the 10-minute definition of interaction used by DePaulo et al. and M = 0 . 90 (SD =0.54, N=25) in a second study shortening the interaction definition to 5 minutes (increasing the number of reporting opportunities). Thus, the current literature provides estimates ranging from 0.59 to 1.96 lies per day. Variation in estimates from study to study is expected due to small sample sizes and large standard deviations.
Other broad estimates of prevarication cited by deception researchers have come from nonacademic sources. In a poll conducted for the book
The Day America Told the Truth
(Patterson & Kim, 1991), 90% of the subjects admitted being deceitful about a list of subjects, the most common being true feelings, income, accomplishments, sex life, and age. In a Reader’s Digest poll (Kalish, 2004) of 2,861 of the magazine’s readers, 93% reported one or more kinds of dishonesty at work or school, 93% reported one or more dishonest acts in the market place, and 96% reported lying to or committing other dishonest acts toward family and friends.
Some studies report on various facets of prevalence but provide limited insight into the overall extent of lying because they deal with specific situations such as lying by job applicants, students lying to parents, or lying about spousal infidelity.
Levashina and Campion (2007) found that 90% of undergraduate job candidates used some form of deception during job interviews; however, the distinction between impression management and outright lies is often blurred and their report notes that behaviors that are semantically close to lies are difficult to confirm. They estimate actual lies occur in the wide range of 28 – 75% of job interviews. Jensen, Arnett, Feldman, and Cauffman (2004) examined lying to parents by adolescents and young adults, and quantified the extent of lying by topic over the course of a year. This study found that 82% of all students reported lying to their parents on at least one of six topical issues (money, alcohol/drugs, friends, dating, parties, and sex) with the mean incidence of lying ranging from 0.6 to 2.4 lies depending on the issue.

Much of the research that seeks to quantify lying behavior is concentrated in the area of relational communication. Cochran and Mays (1990) studied dating dishonesty among college students and found that 60% of women claimed to have been lied to in order to obtain sex, whereas 34% of the men in the study admitted lying to obtain sex. Knox, Schacht, Holt, and Turner (1993) found that 92% of students (when given the opportunity to report anonymously) admitted to lying to a current or potential sexual partner.
It is not difficult to understand why many scholars believe lying is a frequent event.
Life experiences and anecdotal evidence encourage acceptance of the proposition. A typical research report discussion statement illustrates this view: ‘‘Lying is ubiquitous and comes in many forms, from cherished beliefs about Santa Claus to the self- deception commonly encountered in the treatment situation’’ (Tosone, 2006).
General acceptance of the ubiquity assumption has implications for studies on lying and deception detection. If everyone lies and lying is an everyday occurrence for most people, this would suggest that individual differences should not have much influence on the identification of lying behaviors. If this is the case, it should be possible to understand the nature of lying and deceptive behavior and find ways to detect it by studying anyone telling lies. For example, this presumption is recurrent in studies that look for regularities in nonverbal cues, microexpressions, and the leakage of emotions. Individual differences are typically considered of less relevance than situational considerations such as whether the lie is a minor everyday lie or if the lie is a consequential, high-stakes lie. If, on the other hand, base rates for lying (the frequency with which one lies or the ratio of truths to lies) vary across groups of individuals or if the ubiquitous average masks variation that is not normally distributed in the population, researchers looking into the nature of the phenomenon need to take into account this variation. Research designs and sample selection procedures ought to control for this variation, or they should examine the nature of the variation itself.
Consistent with this second possibility, recent meta-analysis suggests substantial individual differences in people’s ability to lie convincingly (Bond & DePaulo, 2008).

Examination of the literature reveals few attempts to document the extent to which everyday lies occur. The few studies that offer behavioral rates have performed so as an adjunct to the main objectives of the research and the rates obtained are restricted to the specific conditions of the studies. This situation is exemplified by the DePaulo et al. (1996) studies. Although lie frequency is among the interests that prompted their research, most of the design and analysis is devoted to the topics of what people lie about, to whom they lie, and what motivates them to lie. DePaulo et al. noted that their observations of lying frequency are based on students and an adult sample that was chosen not for representativeness but, instead, to provide a dissimilar sample in order to determine whether or not the results from the student sample could be replicated. Still, DePaulo et al. reported: ‘‘Participants in the community study, on the average, told a lie every day; participants in the college student study told two.’’ So despite being based on data that were (correctly) noted by its authors as lacking generalizability, this research report has become the standard reference for the prevalence of everyday lies in the deception literature. The goal of Study 1 is to test this claim by obtaining data from a large cross-section of the adult population.
As much as these above literatures or scholars opinion on the subject matter, no literatures on this subject by Nigerian scholars, rather than just few blog articles by few Nigerian bloggers. So this serves as a limitation to this study, and gives a gap for me to fill.

Chapter Three

3.1 Methodology

In order to examine the proposition that most people tell one to two lies per day with projectable data, an Internet survey of 1,000 Nigerian adults (18 years of age or older) was conducted using social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and a relationship website kingsmond.com .
Each survey day, a new sample (N = 5,500) is drawn from the pool adapting DePaulo methodology.
Subjects are randomly selected within strata defined by population characteristics. The response rate is typically 19 – 20%, accounting for both nonresponse and incomplete surveys. Responses exceeding the 1,000 daily quotas are deleted using systematic sampling different kinds of questions on day basis.
This study used a nonexperimental survey design in order to obtain descriptive measures for the incidence of lying in the population. Results from this survey are compared with the popular standard established by the DePaulo et al. (1996) studies.
Standard power function curves fit the frequencies of face-to-face lies plotted by number of lies for all receiver types.
Is that people are more likely to lie to others with whom they are familiar. Establishing the proportion of interactions involving lies may be more difficult than establishing the rate of lying for a prescribed time period. All of the diary studies to which these results are compared are flawed with regard to the interaction ratio. In order to capture as many lies as possible, DePaulo et al. (1996) specified that subjects were to record all interactions of 10 minutes or more. Subjects were told to record all lies that occurred during these interactions and, importantly, record lies occurring during shorter interactions as well. As a result, the ratio of total lies, regardless of interaction duration, to 10-minute interactions distorts the true relationship. If the number of 10-minute interactions varies across respondents or modes of communication, these comparisons may be more misleading than comparisons of the number of lies in each category during the fixed 24-hour time frame. Subsequent diary studies incorporate the lie per interaction distortion created by the DePaulo et al. methodology.

In order to consider more fully the possibility of individual differences in the propensity to lie, a multiple regression analysis was performed. Initially, a natural logarithm transformation was applied to the continuous lying measure as a means of reducing its nonnormality. Although not eliminating the nonnormality completely, this transformation had the effect of decreasing skewness by a factor of approximately 4 and kurtosis by a factor of approximately 18. To assess the impact of the demographic measures on lying, the natural logarithm transformed lying measure was regressed onto all demographic measures. Trivial predictors were dropped, the analysis was iterated, and two important, albeit modest in magnitude, predictors
This apparent gender difference is in the opposite direction observed by DePaulo et al. (1996) but is consistent with the finding that women find lying less acceptable than men (Levine, McCornack, & Avery, 1992).


Chapter Four
4.1 Discussion
The results of this national study are consistent with the DePaulo et al. (1996) diary study and suggest that on average Americans lie once or twice a day. However, the important findings are that many people do not lie on a given day, the majority of lies are told by a few prolific liars, and because the distribution is highly skewed, the mean number of lies per day is misleading. This pattern is consistent across modes of communication and varies little on the basis of who is being lied to. Examination of individual differences suggests some variation but in most cases the differences are small.
The representativeness of online panel data is debatable. Use of poststratification (such as employed by Synovate) and propensity (likelihood of response) weighting schemes are the usual solutions to matching panel samples to the population. In general, the use of a large number of small and internally homogeneous strata will enhance the proportional fit of the sample to the population. However, non- coverage and self-selection can create sampling problems in Web-based research that weighting does not solve (Loosveldt & Sonck, 2008). These representative-ness issues are of particular concern when the measured values are correlated with the underlying reasons for the selection bias. However, when measuring socially undesirable behavior, assessment of representativeness is confounded. Loosveldt and Sonck obtained measures for validation of questions influenced by social desirability using face-to-face interviews; this introduces potential mode effects. Even with the selection problem, the social distance advantage of the Internet may actually produce better data. Birnbaum (2004) provides an argument for representativeness when the results are homogeneous across strata. Because selection bias tends to vary across the levels of a stratified sample, small individual differences for a measure across the stratification variables is evidence that the aggregate finding transcends the sampling issues and is indicative that the sample result is representative of the phenomenon in the population as a whole. Although the findings were generally homogenous across the sample of adult Nigerians, some small demographic differences were apparent. Notably, age and race/ethnicity account for small but statistically significant variation. Further, the difference between reports of lying by men and women approached statistical significance. These findings may have theoretical, social, and cultural implications.

Perhaps the most interesting individual difference is the negative association between lying and age. Lying is acquired by children in early childhood and the ability to lie is correlated with the acquisition of perspective-taking, theory of mind, and communication skills (Vasek, 1986; see Knapp, 2008, pp. 91 – 116 for a summary discussion of lying and development). As the child reaches adolescence, lying skill is perfected, but lying declines in acceptance in early adulthood (Jensen et al., 2004).
The difference between rates of lies reported by the DePaulo et al. (1996) student and (adult) community samples suggests that maturity tempers the usage of lying as a strategy for goal attainment, and the current findings of the national data in Study 1 are consistent with the claim that the lying declines with age.
With regard to the finding that Caucasians report fewer lies than those of other ethnic or racial groups, it would be irresponsible to simply conclude that White people are more honest in general than those of other races. Research on race and data exhibit the overall distributional properties of a few lies told by most of the subjects and most of the lies told by a few liars. Of the total students in this study,
66.2% told the equivalent of two lies per day or less. Conversely, the seven most frequent liars (9.2% of the sample) told more than the equivalent of five lies per day, or 26.2% of all lies reported. A mnemonic device and to prove additional detail for the analysis, the results of the 10 receiver-mode combinations were aggregated. Specifically, the question was worded: Think about where you were and what you were doing during the past 24 hours, from this time yesterday until right now. Listed below are the kinds of people you might have lied to and how you might have talked to them, either face-to-face or some other way such as in writing or by phone or over the Internet. In each of the boxes below, please write in the number of times you have lied in this type of situation. If you have not told any lies of a particular type, write in ‘‘0.’’ In the past 24 hours, how many times have you lied?
The subjects were presented with a response grid showing the five types of people and two modes of communication. Subjects were instructed to enter a number in each box. The Internet questionnaire required a response in each of the 10 boxes before allowing the subject to continue to the next Web page. Figure 1 presents a screen shot of the lying description used in the Web survey; Figure 2 is a screen shot of the survey question. Based on the 5×2 individual categories of responses, the row, column, and grand total frequencies (of lies per day) were aggregated for each subject.
Results
The results of this national study are consistent with the oft-cited observation that on average Nigerians tell one to two lies per day (M =1.65 lies per day, SD=4.45,Mdn=0, Mode=0,N=998, Max=53 lies, 95% CI=1.37 – 1.93). But the most intriguing finding is the distribution of responses, not the mean. As Figure 3 illustrates the majority of people report telling no lies during the past 24 hours and most of the reported lies are told by few people. The 40.1% who reported lying told a total of 1,646 lies (M=4.11, SD=6.26, n= 400). Of these, 22.7% of all reported lies were told by 1% of the national sample. Results indicate that one-half of all reported lies are told by just 5.3% of Nigerian adults (M=15.61, SD=11.22, n=53).


This indicates that most persons lies especially woman as a result of protect feelings as against other chart areas in the above chart.

Chapter Five

Finding and Conclusion
Over time, most Nigerians men probably lie at least occasionally. Most Nigerian women tell lies more than men to either get money and other material things from their boyfriends, husbands, parents as the cases may be with the perception that they are meant to be care for. But the inference of pervasive daily lying, drawn from the statistical average of one to two lies per day, and reinforced by media coverage of corporate deception and political malfeasance, as well as pop culture portrayals of deception detectors, belies the basic honest present in most people’s everyday communication. Self-report data for the Nigerian adult population show the average rate of lying is around 1.65 lies per day; but the data are not reliable because it was got online. On any given day, the majority of lies are told by a medium portion of the population, and nearly 6 out of 10 Nigerians claim to have told no lies at all. As researchers continue to examine the nature of lying and look for ways to detect deception effectively, both the theories of deception, and the methods used to test those theories, necessarily must take into account that veracity is not a constant across the population and that the propensity to lie can be an important moderator.

........................................................................................................................................................

Hi there, I’m Kingsley, Kingsmond Ehimare (Dip., B.Sc., M.Sc., AHR.) Business-strategic Psychologist, Business cognitive Coach.
...........................................................................................................................................................
Ps: Please feel free to contact me for your research, assignments, talk show, free contributor on: kingsmond.com1@gmail.com; instagram:kcmond & twitter:@kingsmond.com

http://www.kingsmond..com
https://web.facebook.com/kingsmond/
http://twitter.com/kingsmond_com
https://instagram.com/kcmond