Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2740908.2742575acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Discriminative Models for Predicting Deception Strategies

Published: 18 May 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Although a large body of work has previously investigated various cues predicting deceptive communications, especially as demonstrated through written and spoken language (e.g., [30]), little has been done to explore predicting kinds of de- ception. We present novel work to evaluate the use of textual cues to discriminate between deception strategies (such as exaggeration or falsification), concentrating on intention- ally untruthful statements meant to persuade in a social media context. We conduct human subjects experimenta- tion wherein subjects were engaged in a conversational task and then asked to label the kind(s) of deception they employed for each deceptive statement made. We then develop discriminative models to understand the difficulty between choosing between one and several strategies. We evaluate the models using precision and recall for strategy prediction among 4 deception strategies based on the most relevant psycholinguistic, structural, and data-driven cues. Our single strategy model results demonstrate as much as a 58% increase over baseline (random chance) accuracy and we also find that it is more difficult to predict certain kinds of de- ception than others.

References

[1]
D. E. Anderson, B. M. DePaulo, M. E. Ansfield, J. J. Tickle, and E. Green. Beliefs about cues to deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(1):67--89, 1999.
[2]
L. Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45(1):5--32, 2001.
[3]
E. J. Briscoe, D. S. Appling, and H. Hayes. Cues to deception in social media communications. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on, pages 1435--1443. IEEE, 2014.
[4]
D. B. Buller, J. K. Burgoon, A. Buslig, and J. Roiger. Interpersonal deception theory: Examining deception from a communication perspective. Technical report, Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1998.
[5]
D. B. Buller, J. K. Burgoon, J. Daly, and J. Wiemann. Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication. Strategic interpersonal communication, pages 191--223, 1994.
[6]
D. B. Buller, J. K. Burgoon, C. H. White, and A. S. Ebesu. Interpersonal deception vii behavioral profiles of falsification, equivocation, and concealment. Journal of language and social psychology, 13(4):366--395, 1994.
[7]
J. K. Burgoon, J. Blair, T. Qin, and J. F. Nunamaker Jr. Detecting deception through linguistic analysis. In Intelligence and Security Informatics, pages 91--101. Springer, 2003.
[8]
J. K. Burgoon, D. B. Buller, L. K. Guerrero, W. A. Afifi, and C. M. Feldman. Interpersonal deception: Xii. information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages. Communications Monographs, 63(1):50--69, 1996.
[9]
W. B. Cavnar and J. M. Trenkle. N-grambased text categorization. In In Proc. of SDAIR-94, 3rd Annual Symposium on Document Analysis and Information Retrieval, 1994.
[10]
C. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, M. Gamon, and S. Dumais. Mark my words!: linguistic style accommodation in social media. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, pages 745--754. ACM, 2011.
[11]
B. M. DePaulo, D. A. Kashy, S. E. Kirkendol, M. M. Wyer, and J. A. Epstein. Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5):979, 1996.
[12]
B. M. DePaulo, J. J. Lindsay, B. E. Malone, L. Muhlenbruck, K. Charlton, and H. Cooper. Cues to deception. Psychological bulletin, 129(1):74, 2003.
[13]
N. D. Duran, C. Hall, P. M. McCarthy, and D. S. McNamara. The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(03):439--462, 2010.
[14]
P. M. Eady and J. C. Lafferty. The subarctic survival situation. Experimental Learning Methods, 1969.
[15]
P. Ekman and W. V. Friesen. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Technical report, DTIC Document, 1969.
[16]
R.-E. Fan, K.-W. Chang, C.-J. Hsieh, X.-R. Wang, and C.-J. Lin. Liblinear: A library for large linear classification. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:1871--1874, 2008.
[17]
D. Graff and C. Cieri. English gigaword ldc2003t05. 2003.
[18]
G. Heiman. Basic statistics for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning, 2013.
[19]
J. Kincaid, R. Fishburn, R. Rogers, and B. Chissom. Derivation of new readability formulas for navy enlisted personnel (research branch report 8--75). Memphis, TN: Naval Air Station, Millington, Tennessee, 1975.
[20]
A. Lenhart, K. Purcell, A. Smith, and K. Zickuhr. Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. millennials. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2010.
[21]
C. D. Manning, M. Surdeanu, J. Bauer, J. Finkel, S. J. Bethard, and D. McClosky. The stanford corenlp natural language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 55--60, 2014.
[22]
I. D. Melamed. Automatic detection of omissions in translations. In Proceedings of the 16th conference on Computational linguistics-Volume 2, pages 764--769. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1996.
[23]
M. Ott, Y. Choi, C. Cardie, and J. T. Hancock. Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1, pages 309--319. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011.
[24]
J. Pennebaker. Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54:547--577, 2003.
[25]
C. Pérez-Sabater. The linguistics of social networking: A study of writing conventions on facebook. Linguistik online, 56(6/12):82, 2012.
[26]
V. L. Rubin. On deception and deception detection: Content analysis of computer-mediated stated beliefs. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1):1--10, 2010.
[27]
Y. R. Tausczik and J. W. Pennebaker. The psychological meaning of words: Liwc and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology, 29(1):24--54, 2010.
[28]
R. E. Turner, C. Edgley, and G. Olmstead. Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 1975.
[29]
L. Zhou. An empirical investigation of deception behavior in instant messaging. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 48(2):147--160, 2005.
[30]
L. Zhou and Y.-w. Sung. Cues to deception in online chinese groups. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, page 146. IEEE Computer Society, 2008.
[31]
L. Zhou and Y.-w. Sung. Discourse cues to online deception. In Quality in Government and Business Symposium, page 1. Citeseer, 2010.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Incorporating Consciousness into an Understanding of Emotion and Nonverbal BehaviorEmotion Review10.1177/1754073923116317715:4(332-347)Online publication date: 21-Mar-2023
  • (2022)A Systematic Review on Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Electronic Information Security in Mobile NetworksSensors10.3390/s2205201722:5(2017)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Do Twitter users change their behavior after exposure to misinformation? An in-depth analysisSocial Network Analysis and Mining10.1007/s13278-022-00992-812:1Online publication date: 10-Nov-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
WWW '15 Companion: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web
May 2015
1602 pages
ISBN:9781450334730
DOI:10.1145/2740908

Sponsors

  • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 May 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. deception
  2. deception strategies
  3. deception strategy prediction
  4. natural language processing
  5. social computing

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • DARPA

Conference

WWW '15
Sponsor:
  • IW3C2

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 25 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Incorporating Consciousness into an Understanding of Emotion and Nonverbal BehaviorEmotion Review10.1177/1754073923116317715:4(332-347)Online publication date: 21-Mar-2023
  • (2022)A Systematic Review on Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Electronic Information Security in Mobile NetworksSensors10.3390/s2205201722:5(2017)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Do Twitter users change their behavior after exposure to misinformation? An in-depth analysisSocial Network Analysis and Mining10.1007/s13278-022-00992-812:1Online publication date: 10-Nov-2022
  • (2020)A Framework for Detecting Intentions of Criminal Acts in Social Media: A Case Study on TwitterInformation10.3390/info1103015411:3(154)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2020
  • (2019)What sets Verified Users apart?Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science10.1145/3292522.3326026(215-224)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2019
  • (2019)Detection of unreliable and reliable pages on FacebookArtificial Life and Robotics10.1007/s10015-018-0509-z24:2(278-284)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2019
  • (2018)Misleading or FalsificationCompanion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 201810.1145/3184558.3188728(575-583)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2018
  • (2018)Contributions to the Study of Fake News in Portuguese: New Corpus and Automatic Detection ResultsComputational Processing of the Portuguese Language10.1007/978-3-319-99722-3_33(324-334)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2018
  • (2016)Detecting deceptive reviews using ArgumentationProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on AI for Privacy and Security10.1145/2970030.2970031(1-8)Online publication date: 29-Aug-2016
  • (2016)Detecting Thai Messages Leading to Deception on FacebookIntegrated Uncertainty in Knowledge Modelling and Decision Making10.1007/978-3-319-49046-5_25(293-304)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2016

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media