Following linguistic footprints: automatic deception detection in online communication

september 2008 | vol. 51 | no. 9 | communications of the acm 119 Deception is information intentionally transmitted to create a false impression or conclusion. Deception in face-to-face communication has been extensively studied in social science disciplines to identify cues to deception and to understand human deception detection. As the globalization and popularity of virtual teams grows, people increasingly rely on computer mediation for interpersonal communication, information acquisition, and information dissemination. Online communication enabled by electronic media (e.g., emails and instant messaging) relieves people from contextual restrictions on their behavior and enables selective self-presentation due to the physical separation and optional anonymity of communication partners. As a result, online communication may offer fertile grounds for deception and alter the social and legal distribution of deceptive practice. According to an annual report of the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3, http://www. ic3.gov/), in 2007, IC3 processed about 220,000 complaints that could lead to Internet crime investigations by law enforcement and regulatory agencies. The total dollar loss from all cases of fraud was $239.00 million, up from $198,000 million in 2006. Email was one of the primary mechanisms (73.6%) by which fraudulent contact took place. Despite ample research on deception and on online communication individually, there is relatively little work aiming to understand their interaction until recently. Through a series of studies on deception in online communication, we have obtained a collection of linguistic cues to deception and developed models for automatic deception detection. These cues and models can be used to assist people in detecting online deception and to increase the public awareness of deception in online communication.

[1]  Lina Zhou,et al.  Representation and Reasoning Under Uncertainty in Deception Detection: A Neuro-Fuzzy Approach , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

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

[3]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  An exploratory study on promising cues in deception detection and application of decision tree , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[4]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages , 1996 .

[5]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2007 .

[6]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Comparison of Classification Methods for Predicting Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Susan H. Adams,et al.  Statement Analysis: What Do Suspects' Words Really Reveal? , 1996 .

[8]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Detecting Deception in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication Using Speech Act Profiling , 2005, ISI.

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

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

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

[12]  John R. Carlson,et al.  Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2004 .

[13]  A. Coughlan,et al.  An Empirical Investigation * , 2002 .