Acoustic-Prosodic and Lexical Cues to Deception and Trust: Deciphering How People Detect Lies

Humans rarely perform better than chance at lie detection. To better understand human perception of deception, we created a game framework, LieCatcher, to collect ratings of perceived deception using a large corpus of deceptive and truthful interviews. We analyzed the acoustic-prosodic and linguistic characteristics of language trusted and mistrusted by raters and compared these to characteristics of actual truthful and deceptive language to understand how perception aligns with reality. With this data we built classifiers to automatically distinguish trusted from mistrusted speech, achieving an F1 of 66.1%. We next evaluated whether the strategies raters said they used to discriminate between truthful and deceptive responses were in fact useful. Our results show that, although several prosodic and lexical features were consistently perceived as trustworthy, they were not reliable cues. Also, the strategies that judges reported using in deception detection were not helpful for the task. Our work sheds light on the nature of trusted language and provides insight into the challenging problem of human deception detection.

[1]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Cues to deception. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Noriko Kando,et al.  Certainty Identification in Texts: Categorization Model and Manual Tagging Results , 2023 .

[3]  P. Watson,et al.  Integrative Self-Knowledge and Marital Satisfaction , 2015, The Journal of psychology.

[4]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Linguistic Cues to Deception: Identifying Political Trolls on Social Media , 2019, ICWSM.

[5]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[6]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel , 1975 .

[7]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  Are Computers Effective Lie Detectors? A Meta-Analysis of Linguistic Cues to Deception , 2015, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[8]  Matthew L. Jensen,et al.  Blob Analysis of the Head and Hands: A Method for Deception Detection , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[9]  M. Frank,et al.  Human Behavior and Deception Detection , 2008 .

[10]  J. Nunamaker,et al.  Automating Linguistics-Based Cues for Detecting Deception in Text-Based Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communications , 2004 .

[11]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Linguistic Cues to Deception and Perceived Deception in Interview Dialogues , 2018, NAACL.

[12]  Matthew L. Jensen,et al.  HMM-Based Deception Recognition from Visual Cues , 2005, 2005 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo.

[13]  L. Fleischer Telling Lies Clues To Deceit In The Marketplace Politics And Marriage , 2016 .

[14]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Detecting deception in speech , 2009 .

[15]  C. F. Bond,et al.  Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. , 2011, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  Eileen Fitzpatrick,et al.  Verification and Implementation of Language-Based Deception Indicators in Civil and Criminal Narratives , 2008, COLING.

[17]  Graham Davies The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts: Coping with suggestion and deception in children's accounts , 2004 .

[18]  Peter Banton,et al.  A World of Lies , 2006, Journal of cross-cultural psychology.

[19]  Mohamed Abouelenien,et al.  Verbal and Nonverbal Clues for Real-life Deception Detection , 2015, EMNLP.

[20]  Björn Schuller,et al.  Opensmile: the munich versatile and fast open-source audio feature extractor , 2010, ACM Multimedia.

[21]  Junyi Jessy Li,et al.  Fast and Accurate Prediction of Sentence Specificity , 2015, AAAI.

[22]  Masatoshi Itoh,et al.  Deceiving Others: Distinct Neural Responses of the Prefrontal Cortex and Amygdala in Simple Fabrication and Deception with Social Interactions , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  Massimo Poesio,et al.  Automatic deception detection in Italian court cases , 2013, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[25]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Accuracy of Deception Judgments , 2006, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[26]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[27]  P. Ekman Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace , 1985 .

[28]  Manoochehr Azkhosh,et al.  Five Factor Model in Iranian Culture: A Psychometrics Analysis of NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) , 2014 .

[29]  M. Zuckerman Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception , 1981 .

[30]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Using Hedge Detection to Improve Committed Belief Tagging , 2018 .

[31]  T. Levine,et al.  Content in Context Improves Deception Detection Accuracy , 2010 .

[32]  Klaus R. Scherer,et al.  Invited article: Face, voice, and body in detecting deceit , 1991 .

[33]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Acoustic-Prosodic Indicators of Deception and Trust in Interview Dialogues , 2018, INTERSPEECH.

[34]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors , 2013, ACL.

[35]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[36]  David Dawson,et al.  Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security , 2011 .

[37]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Cross-Cultural Production and Detection of Deception from Speech , 2015, WMDD@ICMI.

[38]  P. Boersma Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.05) , 2009 .

[39]  Paul Ekman,et al.  Lie Catching and Microexpressions , 2009 .

[40]  Cynthia Whissell,et al.  THE DICTIONARY OF AFFECT IN LANGUAGE , 1989 .

[41]  Daniel Povey,et al.  The Kaldi Speech Recognition Toolkit , 2011 .

[42]  Amy Beth Warriner,et al.  Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas , 2014, Behavior research methods.

[43]  J. Wheatcroft,et al.  Subjective Cues to Deception/Honesty in a High Stakes Situation: An Exploratory Approach , 2015, The Journal of psychology.

[44]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Comparing Approaches for Automatic Question Identification , 2017, *SEM.

[45]  Claire Cardie,et al.  Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination , 2011, ACL.

[46]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[47]  Sarah Ita Levitan Deception in Spoken Dialogue: Classification and Individual Differences , 2019 .

[48]  Carlo Strapparava,et al.  The Lie Detector: Explorations in the Automatic Recognition of Deceptive Language , 2009, ACL.

[49]  Paul Ekman,et al.  Lying and nonverbal behavior: Theoretical issues and new findings , 1988 .

[50]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[51]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  Deception detection based on neuroimaging: Better than the polygraph? , 2017 .

[52]  Michael G. Aamodt,et al.  Who can best catch a liar?: A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. , 2006 .

[53]  Yejin Choi,et al.  Syntactic Stylometry for Deception Detection , 2012, ACL.

[54]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence , 2005 .

[55]  Francisco Lacerda,et al.  Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously , 2007 .

[56]  T. Levine Truth-Default Theory (TDT) , 2014 .

[57]  Kyle J. Susa,et al.  Can intuition improve deception detection performance , 2009 .

[58]  Verónica Pérez-Rosas,et al.  Experiments in Open Domain Deception Detection , 2015, EMNLP.

[59]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.