Detecting Deception in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication Using Speech Act Profiling

  • Douglas P. Twitchell
  • Nicole Forsgren
  • Karl Wiers
  • Judee K. Burgoon
  • Jay F. Nunmaker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3495)


Detecting deception is a complicated endeavor. Previous attempts at deception detection in computer-mediated communication have met with some success. This study shows how speech act profiling [1] can be used to aid deception detection in synchronous computer-mediated communication (S-CMC). Chat logs from an online group game where deception was introduced were subjected to speech act profiling analysis. The results provide some support to previous research showing greater uncertainty in deceptive S-CMC. Also shown is that deceivers in the specific task tend to engage in less strategizing than non-deceivers.


Game Board Online Conversation Deceptive Interpersonal Truthful Message SwitchBoard Corpus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Twitchell, D.P., Nunamaker Jr., J.F.: Speech Act Profiling: A probabilistic method for analyzing persistent conversations and their participants. In: Thirty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (CD/ROM). IEEE Computer Society Press, Big Island (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DePaulo, B.M., et al.: Cues to Deception. Psychology Bulletin 129(1), 75–118 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuckerman, M., Driver, R.E.: Telling Lies: Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of Deception. In: Siegman, A.W., Feldstein, S. (eds.) Multichannel Integrations of Nonverbal Behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1985)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou, L., et al.: Automated linguistics based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication: An empirical investigation. Group Decision and Negotiation 13(1), 81–106 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou, L., et al.: Toward the Automatic Prediction of Deception - An empirical comparison of classification methods. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(4), 139–166 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou, L., Burgoon, J.K., Twitchell, D.P.: A longitudinal analysis of language behavior of deception in e-mail. In: Chen, H., Miranda, R., Zeng, D.D., Demchak, C.C., Schroeder, J., Madhusudan, T. (eds.) ISI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2665, pp. 102–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marett, L.K., George, J.F.: Deception in the Case of One Sender and Multiple Receivers. Group Decision and Negotiation 13(1), 29–44 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou, L., et al.: Language dominance in interpersonal deception in computer-mediated communication. Computers and Human Behavior 20(3), 381–402 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Twitchell, D.P., Nunamaker Jr., J.F., Burgoon, J.K.: Using Speech Act Profiling for Deception Detection. In: Chen, H., Moore, R., Zeng, D.D., Leavitt, J. (eds.) ISI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3073, pp. 403–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burgoon, J.K., et al.: The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 25(6), 669–685 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stolcke, A., et al.: Dialogue Act Modeling for Automatic Tagging and Recognition of Conversational Speech. Computational Linguistics 26(3), 339–373 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, G., Chen, H., Atabakhsh, H.: Automatically detecting deceptive criminal identities. Communications of the ACM 47(3), 70–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burgoon, J.K., et al.: Deceptive realities: Sender, receiver, and observer perspectives in deceptive conversations. Communication Research 23, 724–748 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Twitchell, D.P., et al.: StrikeCOM: A Multi-Player Online Strategy Game for Researching and Teaching Group Dynamics. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (CD/ROM). IEEE Computer Society, Big Island (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas P. Twitchell
    • 1
  • Nicole Forsgren
    • 1
  • Karl Wiers
    • 1
  • Judee K. Burgoon
    • 1
  • Jay F. Nunmaker
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Management of InformationUniversity of ArizonaTucson

Personalised recommendations