Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 81–106 | Cite as

Automating Linguistics-Based Cues for Detecting Deception in Text-Based Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communications

  • Lina Zhou
  • Judee K. Burgoon
  • Jay F. Nunamaker
  • Doug Twitchell
Article

Abstract

The detection of deception is a promising but challenging task. A systematic discussion of automated Linguistics Based Cues (LBC) to deception has rarely been touched before. The experiment studied the effectiveness of automated LBC in the context of text-based asynchronous computer mediated communication (TA-CMC). Twenty-seven cues either extracted from the prior research or created for this study were clustered into nine linguistics constructs: quantity, diversity, complexity, specificity, expressivity, informality, affect, uncertainty, and nonimmediacy. A test of the selected LBC in a simulated TA-CMC experiment showed that: (1) a systematic analysis of linguistic information could be useful in the detection of deception; (2) some existing LBC were effective as expected, while some others turned out in the opposite direction to the prediction of the prior research; and (3) some newly discovered linguistic constructs and their component LBC were helpful in differentiating deception from truth.

deception deception detection linguistics based cue computer-mediated communication natural language processing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aggarwal, C. C. and P. S. Yu. (2001). “Outlier Detection for High Dimensional Data,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD, Santa Barbara, California, 37-46.Google Scholar
  2. Akehurst, L., G. Köhnken, and E. Höfer. (1995). “The Analysis and Application of Statement Validity Assessment,” Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Psychology and Law, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  3. Borchgrevink, C. P. (unpublished). “Verbal Immediacy: Verbal immediacy coding scheme.”Google Scholar
  4. Buller, D. B. and J. K. Burgoon. (1994). “Deception: Strategic and Nonstrategic Communication,” in J. A. Daly, and J. M. Wiemann (eds.), Strategic Interpersonal Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 191–223.Google Scholar
  5. Buller, D. B. and J. K. Burgoon. (1996). “Interpersonal Deception Theory,” Communication Theory 6, 203–242.Google Scholar
  6. Buller, D. B., J. K. Burgoon, A. Buslig, and J. Roiger. (1994). “Interpersonal Deception: VIII. Nonverbal and Verbal Correlates of Equivocation from the Bavelas et al. (1990) Research,” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13, 396–417.Google Scholar
  7. Buller, D. B., J. K. Burgoon, A. Buslig, and J. Roiger. (1996). “Testing Interpersonal Deception Theory: The Language of Interpersonal Deception,” Communication Theory 6, 268–289.Google Scholar
  8. Burgoon, J. K., D. E. Buller, L. K. Guerrero, W. A. Afifi, and C. M. Feldman. (1996). “Interpersonal Deception: XII. Information Management Dimensions Underlying Deceptive and Truthful Messages,” Communication Monographs 63, 52–69.Google Scholar
  9. Burgoon, J. K., M. Burgoon, and M. Wilkinson. (1981). “Writing Style as Predictor of Newspaper Readership, Satisfaction and Image,” Journalism Quarterly 58, 225–231.Google Scholar
  10. Chidambaram, L. (1996). “Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups,” MIS Quarterly 20, 143–165.Google Scholar
  11. Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. DePaulo, B. M., J. T. Stone, and G. D. Lassiter. (1985). “Deceiving and Detecting Deceit,” in B. R. Schlenker (ed.), The Self and Social Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. DePaulo, B. M., J. J. Linsay, B. E. Malone, L. Muhlenbac, K. Charlton, and H. Cooper. (2003). “Cues to Deception,” Psychological Bulletin 129, 74–118.Google Scholar
  15. Donohue, W. A. (1991). “Verbal Intensity: Communication, Marital Dispute, and Divorce Mediation,” Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Driscoll, L. N. (1994). “A Validity Assessment of Written Statements from Suspects in Criminal Investigations Using the Scan Technique,” Police Studies 17, 77–88.Google Scholar
  17. Ekman, P. (1985). Telling Lies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  18. Fawcett, T. and F. Provost. (1997). “Adaptive Fraud Detection,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Journal 1, 291–316.Google Scholar
  19. Frank, M. G. and T. H. Feeley. (in press). “To Catch a Liar: Challenges for Research in Lie Detection Training,” Journal of Applied Communication Research. Google Scholar
  20. Hernandez-Fernaud, E. and M. Alonso-Quecuty. (1997). “The Cognitive Interview and Lie Detection: A New Magnifying Glass for Sherlock Holmes?” Applied Cognitive Psychology 11, 55–68.Google Scholar
  21. Höfer, E., L. Akehurst, and G. Metzger. (1996). “Reality Monitoring: A Chance for Further Development of CBCA?” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the European Association on Psychology and Law, Sienna, Italy.Google Scholar
  22. Internet Society, info.isoc.org.Google Scholar
  23. Jarvenpaa, S. L. and D. E. Leidner. (1998). “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Terms,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, M. K. (1988). “Reality Monitoring: An Experimental Phenomenological Approach,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117, 390–394.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, M. K., M. A. Foley, A. G. Suengas, and C. L. Raye. (1988). “Phenomenal Characteristics of Memories for Perceived and Imagined Autobiographical Events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117, 371–376.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, M. K. and C. L. Raye. (1981). “Reality Monitoring,” Psychological Review 88, 67–85.Google Scholar
  27. Karlsson, F. and L. Karttunen. (1997). “Sub-Sentential Processing,” in R. Cole, J. Mariani, H. Uszkoreit, A. Zaenen, and V. Zue (eds.), Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology, Pisa, Italy: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Köhnken, G., E. Schimossek, E. Aschermann, and E. Höfer. (1995). “The Cognitive Interview and the Assessment of the Credibility of Adults' Statements,” Journal of Applied Psychology 80, 671–684.Google Scholar
  29. Kraut, R. E. (1978). “Verbal and Nonverbal Cues in the Perception of Lying,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, 380–391.Google Scholar
  30. Lafferty, J. and P. Eady. (1974). The Desert Survival Problem. Plymouth, Michigan: Experimental Learning Methods.Google Scholar
  31. Landry, K. and J. C. Brigham. (1992). “The Effect of Training in Criteria-Based Content Analysis on the Ability to Detect Deception in Adults,” Law and Human Behavior 16, 663–675.Google Scholar
  32. Lindsay, D. S. and M. K. Johnson. (1987). “Reality Monitoring and Suggestibility: Children's Ability to Discriminate Among Memories from Different Sources,” in S. J. Ceci, J. Toglia, and D. F. Ross (eds.), Children's Eyewitness Memory. New York: Springer-Verlag, 91–121.Google Scholar
  33. Mehrabian, A. and M. Wiener. (1966). “Nonimmediacy Between Communicator and Object of Communication in a Verbal Message: Application to the Inference of Attitudes,” Journal of Consulting Psychology 30, 420–425.Google Scholar
  34. Mukherjee, B., L. T. Heberlein, and K. N. Levitt. (1994). “Network Intrusion Detection,” IEEE Network 8, 26–41.Google Scholar
  35. Porter, S. and J. C. Yuille. (1996). “The Language of Deceit: An Investigation of the Verbal Clues to Deception in the Interrogation Context,” Law and Human Behavior 20, 443–458.Google Scholar
  36. Raskin, D. C. and P. W. Esplin. (1991). “Statement Validity Assessment: Interview Procedures and Content Analysis of Children's Statements of Sexual Abuse,” Behavioral Assessment 13, 265–291.Google Scholar
  37. Ruby, C. L. and J. C. Brigham. (1997). “The Usefulness of the Criteria-Based Content Analysis Technique in Distinguishing Between Truthful and Fabricated Allegations,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3, 705–737.Google Scholar
  38. Ruby, C. L. and J. C. Brigham. (1998). “Can Criteria-Based Content Analysis Distinguish Between True and False Statements of African-American Speakers?” Law and Human Behavior 22, 369–388.Google Scholar
  39. Samuelsson, C. and A. Voutilainen. (1997). “Comparing a Linguistic and a Stochastic Tagger,” Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Madrid, Spain, 246-253.Google Scholar
  40. Sapir, A. (1987). “The LSI Course on Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN),” Laboratory For Scientific Interrogation, Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, N. (2001). “Reading Between the Lines: An Evaluation of the Scientific Content Analysis Technique (SCAN),” in C. F. Willis (ed.), Policing and Reducing Crime Unit: Police Research Series, London: Crown.Google Scholar
  42. Sporer, S. L. (1997). “The Less Travelled Road to Truth: Verbal Cues in Deception Detection in Accounts of Fabricated and Self-Experienced Events,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 11, 373–397.Google Scholar
  43. Steller, M. and G. Köhnken. (1989). “Criteria-Based Content Analysis,” in D. C. Raskin (ed.), Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence. New York: Springer Verlag, 217–245.Google Scholar
  44. Undeutsch, U. (1989). “The Development of Statement Reality Analysis,” in U. Undeutsch (ed.), Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence. The Netherlands: Kluwer, Dordrecht, 101–121.Google Scholar
  45. Voutilainen, A. (2000). “Helsinki Taggers and Parsers for English,” in J. M. Kirk (ed.), Corpora Galore: Analysis and Techniques in Describing English. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  46. Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice. Chichester, England, New York: John Wiley Inc.Google Scholar
  47. Vrij, A., W. Kneller, and S. Mann. (2000). “The Effect of Informing Liars about Criteria-Based Content Analysis on their Ability to Deceive CBCA-Raters,” Legal and Criminological Psychology 5, 57–70.Google Scholar
  48. Wheeler, R. and S. Aitken. (2000). “Multiple Algorithms for Fraud Detection,” Knowledge-Based Systems 13, 93–99.Google Scholar
  49. Wiener, M. and A. Mehrabian. (1968). “Language Within Language: Immediacy, A Channel in Verbal Communication,” New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  50. Wolz, U., H. Walker, J. Palme, P. Anderson, Z. Chen, J. Dunne, G. Karlsson, A. Laribi, S. Mannikko, and R. Spielvogel. (1997). “Computer-Mediated Communication in Collaborative Educational Settings,” ACM SIGCUE Outlook 25, 51–68.Google Scholar
  51. statistics.html.Google Scholar
  52. Zhou, L., Q. E. Booker, and D. Zhang. (2002). “ROD-Toward Rapid Ontology Development for Underdeveloped Domains,” Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, Jan. 7-10.Google Scholar
  53. Zuckerman, M., B. M. DePaulo, and R. Rosenthal. (1981). “Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception,” in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lina Zhou
    • 1
  • Judee K. Burgoon
    • 2
  • Jay F. Nunamaker
    • 2
  • Doug Twitchell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of MarylandBaltimore CountyUSA E-mail
  2. 2.Center for the Management of InformationUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA E-mail

Personalised recommendations