An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

Background: Academic research on deception detection has largely focused on the detection of past events. For many applied purposes, however, the detection of false reports about someone’s intention merits attention. Based on the verbal deception detection paradigm, we explored whether true statements on intentions were more detailed and more specific than false statements on intentions, particularly when instructed to be as specific as possible. Method: Participants (n = 222) lied or told the truth about their upcoming travel plans either providing ‘as much information as possible’ (standard instructions) or being ‘as specific as possible’ (i.e., mentioning times, locations, places; specific instructions), resulting in four conditions (truthful vs. deceptive intention by standard vs. specific instructions). We collected data via a custom-made web app and performed automated verbal content analysis of participants’ written answers. Findings: We did not find a significant difference in the specificity of participants’ statements. The instruction to be as specific as possible promoted more specific information but did not help to discern honest from deceptive flying intentions. Conclusion: The experiment reported here attempted to demonstrate automated verbal deception detection of intentions. The difficulty in capturing genuine intentions, and the non-intrusive, non-interactive questioning approach might explain the null findings and raise questions for further research. We conclude with suggestions for a novel framework on semi-interactive information elicitation.

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

[2]  Bennett Kleinberg,et al.  Detecting Deceptive Intentions: Possibilities for Large-Scale Applications , 2019, The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication.

[3]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Expect the unexpected? variations in question type elicit cues to deception in joint interviewer contexts , 2013 .

[4]  P. Granhag,et al.  The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique , 2014 .

[5]  Galit Nahari,et al.  Applying the Verifiability Approach to insurance claims settings: Exploring the effect of the information protocol , 2017 .

[6]  Galit Nahari,et al.  Are you as good as me at telling a story? Individual differences in interpersonal reality monitoring , 2014 .

[7]  Pär Anders Granhag,et al.  Markers of good planning behavior as a cue for separating true and false intent. , 2013, PsyCh journal.

[8]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Lying about flying: the first experiment to detect false intent , 2011 .

[9]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  The role of motivation to avoid detection in reaction time-based concealed information detection. , 2016, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.

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

[11]  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.

[12]  A. Vrij,et al.  Applying the Verifiability Approach in an international airport setting , 2017 .

[13]  Galit Nahari,et al.  Exploiting liars' verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details , 2014 .

[14]  Verónica Pérez-Rosas,et al.  Cross-cultural Deception Detection , 2014, ACL.

[15]  Galit Nahari,et al.  The verifiability approach:countermeasures facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies: the verifiability approach and countermeasures , 2014 .

[16]  Iris Blandón-Gitlin,et al.  A reverse order interview does not aid deception detection regarding intentions , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[17]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[18]  Adrienne Y. Lee,et al.  Language of lies in prison: linguistic classification of prisoners' truthful and deceptive natural language , 2005 .

[19]  A. Vrij,et al.  Outsmarting the Liars: The Benefit of Asking Unanticipated Questions , 2009, Law and human behavior.

[20]  Fenna H. Poletiek,et al.  The Effects of Unexpected Questions on Detecting Familiar and Unfamiliar Lies , 2013 .

[21]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  True and false intentions: asking about the past to detect lies about the future , 2013 .

[22]  S. Porter,et al.  Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection , 2010, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[23]  Claire Cardie,et al.  Negative Deceptive Opinion Spam , 2013, NAACL.

[24]  A. Vrij,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Details in Intentions: A Cue to Detecting Deception , 2013 .

[25]  P. Granhag,et al.  Episodic future thought: Illuminating the trademarks of forming true and false intentions , 2011 .

[26]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd ed. , 2008 .

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

[28]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  Using Named Entities for Computer‐Automated Verbal Deception Detection , 2017, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

[30]  L. Zhou An empirical investigation of deception behavior in instant messaging , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[31]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Interpersonal Reality Monitoring: Judging the Sources of Other People's Memories , 1998 .

[32]  Galit Nahari,et al.  Telling a convincing story: Richness in detail as a function of gender and information , 2015 .

[33]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  You cannot hide your telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance telephone calls , 2015 .

[34]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Statements about true and false intentions: using the Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences. , 2015, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[35]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) Cannot Distinguish Between Truthful and Fabricated Accounts of a Negative Event , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[36]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  RT-BASED MEMORY DETECTION: ITEM SALIENCY EFFECTS IN THE SINGLE-PROBE AND THE MULTIPLE-PROBE PROTOCOL , 2015 .

[37]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Memory detection 2 . 0 : The first web-based memory detection test , 2018 .

[38]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Detecting Deceptive Chat-Based Communication Using Typing Behavior and Message Cues , 2013, TMIS.

[39]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Verbal Lie Detection Tools : Statement Validity Analysis , Reality Monitoring and Scientific Content Analysis , 2014 .

[40]  Yoong Keok Lee,et al.  Book Review: Automatic Detection of Verbal Deception by Eileen Fitzpatrick, Joan Bachenko and Tommaso Fornaciari , 2015, CL.

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

[42]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis , 2017 .

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

[44]  Ryan L. Boyd,et al.  The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015 , 2015 .

[45]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Reality Monitoring , 2005 .

[46]  Günter Köhnken The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts: Statement Validity Analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’ , 2004 .

[47]  Galit Nahari,et al.  When the long road is the shortcut: a comparison between two coding methods for content-based lie-detection tools , 2016 .

[48]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked , 2012 .

[49]  Maria Hartwig,et al.  Credibility Assessment at Portals , 2014 .

[50]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  Using the verifiability of details as a test of deception: A conceptual framework for the automation of the verifiability approach , 2016 .

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