Cues to Deception in Online Chinese Groups

Advancing our knowledge about cues to deception is crucial to successful deception detection. A lengthy list of cues to deception has been identified via a myriad of deception studies. Nonetheless, we identified two major limitations of existing cues to deception: the lack of cues in computer-mediated communication and in non-Western group communication. In this research, we aim to make some contributions to addressing this line of inquiry. We conducted an empirical study on cues to deception using a large real-world online Chinese community. Through hypotheses testing, we observed a number of interesting findings. For example, we found that deceivers tended to communicate less and showed low complexity and high diversity in their messages. These findings provide significant implications to deception research and the broad online communication community.

[1]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Information Manipulation Theory and Perceptions of Deception in Hong Kong , 1999 .

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

[3]  C. F. Bond,et al.  Lie detection across cultures , 1990 .

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

[5]  Dongsong Zhang,et al.  A Comparison of Deception Behavior in Dyad and Triadic Group Decision Making in Synchronous , 2006 .

[6]  Chrysanthos Dellarocas,et al.  The Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[7]  Michael Harris Bond,et al.  Linking person perception to behavioural intention across cultures: The role of cultural collectivis , 1984 .

[8]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

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

[10]  E. Hall,et al.  Understanding Cultural Differences , 1989 .

[11]  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.

[12]  L. Anolli,et al.  Linguistic Styles in Deceptive Communication: Dubitative Ambiguity and Elliptic Eluding in Packaged Lies , 2003 .

[13]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Detecting Deception through Linguistic Analysis , 2003, ISI.

[14]  Lina Zhou,et al.  Deception Across Cultures: Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches , 2005, ISI.

[15]  M. Lynn.  Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1996 .

[16]  Qun Liu,et al.  HHMM-based Chinese Lexical Analyzer ICTCLAS , 2003, SIGHAN.

[17]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[18]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Automated Linguistic Analysis of Deceptive and Truthful Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  Mark Braverman,et al.  Mafia: A theoretical study of players and coalitions in a partial information environment , 2008 .

[20]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind , 1991 .

[21]  E. Hall,et al.  Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese , 1987 .