Deception detection online a qualitative study of social norms

Deception detection online: Can
you tell if someone is lying to
you?
Catherine Friend
Supervised by: Nicola Fox-Hamilton
M.S.c in Cyberpsychology
Technology for Wellbeing 2016
@PsychFriend

Can’t tell at all
Can tell if someone is
lying
(Ott, Choi, Cardie & Hancock, 2011; Talbot, 2012; Toma &
Hancock, 2012)

Background
Sharing personal information online could be dangerous
Cyber bullying
Phishing
Publication of personal data
(Chao & Tao, 2012; Couch, Liamputtong, & Pitts, 2012; Ding, 2012; Wright, Jensen, Bennett, Dinger & Kent,
2014)

Deception
Purposely “create a false belief”
(Hancock, Birnholtz, Bazarova, Guillory, Perlin & Amos, 2009) p.518
Multiple cues of deception offline not present online
(Hancock & Guillory, 2015; Sanchez-Robert, 2011; Vrij, 2004b)

Social Norms
Is lying accepted online?
Tolerance in:
Butler lies (Hancock & Guillory, 2015)
Dating websites
Business negotiations
(Reynolds, Smith, Birnholtz & Hancock, 2013; Fiore & Donath, 2005; Toma et al., 2008; Gaspar & Schweitzer,
2013; Zhou, Sung & Zhang, 2013).

Online disinhibition
Disassociation (Naquin, Kirtzberg & Blekin, 2010; Suler, 2004).
Perception of reactions more difficult

Invisible
(Hancock et al., 2007; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012; Suler, 2004; Zhou & Zhang, 2004)
)

(Hancock et al., 2007; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012; Suler, 2004; Zhou & Zhang, 2004)
)

Research
Dynamic interaction vs. the deceiver’s side only
(Hancock, Gee, Ciaccio & Lin, 2008; Hancock, Woodworth & Goorha, 2010).
Synchronous/instant messaging
Online text-based
CMC vs face-to-face
(Hancock et al., 2008; Hancock et al., 2009; Hancock et al., 2010).

Text messages
Discussed five topics.
Half of the participants lied about two topics.
Analysed conversation styles of both liar and detector
Linguistic styles were not able to determine accurate deception detection
Hancock et al. (2008)
F2F vs CMC
No significant difference in deception detection

Text messages
Discussed five topics.
Half of the participants lied about two topics.
Analysed conversation styles of both liar and detector
Linguistic styles were not able to determine accurate deception detection
Face-to-face [F2F] vs Computer-mediated-communication [CMC]
No significant difference in deception detection

Trust
Hyper- personal mediated communication online
(Jiang et al., 2013)
Effect from social disinhibition and dissociation
(Peris, Gimeno, Pinazo, Ortet, Carrero, Sanchiz & Ibanez, 2002)
Your ‘honest’ self online?
(Bak, Kim & Yo, 2012; Birnholtz et al., 2010; Whitty & Joinson, 2009)

Truth bias; high rate of trust online (Green & Carpenter, 2011)
Reduced uncertainty (Guerin, 2001)
Reciprocity (Jian et al., 2013)
Strongest in text communication (Burgoon, Stoner, Bonito & Dunbar, 2003)

52.3% Inaccuracy
48.7%
Accuracy
Online dating profles
(Toma & Hancock, 2012)

(Reynolds et al., 2013)92% Truth Bias
8%
Received text messages

(Reynolds et al., 2013)
73% Honesty
27%
Sent text messages
92% Truth Bias
8%
Received text messages

Social awareness
Social personality types, higher social relationships and a higher grasp
of social norms have been found to have higher deception detection
abilities (Granhag, Anderson, Stromwall & Hartwig, 2004; Sanchez, 2011)
‘Perspective taking’ can help predict another individual’s deceptive
behaviours (Abbate, Isgro & Wicklund, 2006; Morin, 2011)
Lack of available research (Aamondt, 2006)

Present study
Real-time dynamic interactions
Trust
Perspective taking
Social norms
The detector of lies

Research questions
R.Q.1. What is the impact of perspective taking and trust on accurate
deception detection based on communication medium?

Research questions
R.Q.1. What is the impact of perspective taking and trust on accurate deception detection based on
communication medium?
R.Q.2.What are the perceptions of the social norms of
deception online?

Method
Mixed methods Between groups correlational design
Pilot study

Participants Partner A
Recruited for study on conversation styles
4 participants at a time (offline condition)
1 participant at a time (online condition)
Confederates Partner B
4 confederates; 3 female, 1 male

Recruited for study on conversation styles
a) Demographics
b) Scales
c) Fully informed
d) Conversation task: Wake up time, running, holiday, film, technology
e) Qualitative questions

Qualitative questions
Q1: Why did you select your chosen topics that you believed that you
were lied to on?
Q2: Why did you not select the topics that you believe you were not
lied to on?
Q3: Where would you expect to be lied to online?

Four phases (Braun & Clarke, 2006)
1. Separated per question
2. Primary themes e.g., “5.30 seems too early to wake up for an 11 am
class” was recorded as a ‘logic’ theme
- Frequency
- Revised
3. A second judge
statistically verified with an inter-rater reliability check at .546.
4. Reviewed for Codebook

Ethical issues
This study was about deception and used deception
Methodology
Ensure participants could leave at any time

Results
N = 40 Gender: male = 21, female = 19
Age Internet Use
N = 27 18-24 age category N = 29 several times a day,
N = 10 25-36 age category N = 4 once a day
N = 3 36-49 age category N = 4 two to three times a week
N = 2 once a week.

Results
Overall.….
Thirty-four themes were identified from 258 codes from a thematic
analysis
Inter-rater reliability Cohen’s Kappa .546

Results
Q1: Why did you select your chosen topics that you believed that you
were lied to on?
Sixteen themes were identified from 105 codes
[too] little detail given in the conversation task [17]
expressed doubt about a conversation topic [16]
questioned the logic of a conversation topic [16].

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Frequency of why participants chose selected topics

Results
Q2: Why did you not select the topics that you believe you were not
lied to on?
Fifteen themes were identified from 58 codes
lots of detail given during the conversation [13].

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
head motion trust attraction openess confidence Doubt little detail tone of voice interest in
topics
comfortable experience perceived
honesty
logic conversation
flow
lots of detail
Frequency of why particpiants did not choose selected themes

Results
Q3: Where would you expect to be lied to online?
Eighteen themes were identified from 95 codes
online disinhibition [20]
relationship status [15]
motivation [14]
online ‘image’ [12].

0
5
10
15
20
25
Frequency of why participants would expect to find deception online

Discussion
Qualitative analysis….
Too little detail and logic
Too much detail (Hancock et al., 2008)
Trust paradox (Bak et al., 2012; Birnholtz et al., 2010; Whitty & Joinson, 2009).

Discussion
Q1: Too little detail given vs. increased word quantity in deception
(Hancock et al., 2008)
Q2. Conversation flow and lots of detail
practice effect and rehearsal by confederates(Colwell et al., 2007; Toma &
Hancock, 2012)
CMC (Hancock et al., 2008)

Discussion
Q3. Actions are different online than offline
“…it's much easier to lie when not in person and so easier to lie about
work related things via email”.
Caution for relationship status
Paradox (Bak et al., 2012; Birnholtz et al., 2010; Whitty & Joinson, 2009).

Understand individual experiences of being deceived online
Aware of deceptive cues but used unreliably
Contradicting each other, ‘too little detail’ and ‘too much detail’
Mental processes hard to describe e.g., “seems convincing” (Vrij, 2004)

Preliminary step to qualitative analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006)
Deceptive abilities of deceiver as main variable (Bond & DePualo, 2008)
- behaviour or success rate of each Partner B, the deceiver.
- Confidence, non-verbal behaviour and language (Bazarova & Yan, 2013; Clements & Clements,
2013; Hancock et al., 2008; Twitchell, Adkins, Nunamaker Jr. & Burgoon, 2004).

Self-awareness
Perspective taking through ‘Theory of Mind’ (Morin, 2011)
- self-awareness and accurate deception detection
- self-awareness effects perspective taking
(Gendolla & Wicklund, 2009; Johnson, Barnacz, Yokkaichi, Rubio, Racioppi, Shackelford et al., 2005; Malcom &
Keenan, 2003)
Mental processing (Johnson et al., 2005; Malcom & Keenan, 2003).
- monitoring cues (Malcom & Keenan, 2003; Sanchez, 2011; Vrij, 2004)
ENTP personality types (Davis, 1980; Sanchez, 2011)

Future research
Professions with exposure and experience (Sanchez, 2011; Talbot, 2012)
Professions and personalities
Training

Future research
Professions and personalities (Lowmaster & Morey, 2012; Surette, Ebert, Willis & Smallidge,
2003)
Training

Future research
Professions and personalities (Lowmaster & Morey, 2012; Surette, Ebert, Willis & Smallidge,
2003)
Training (Loveland, Lounsbury, Park & Jackson, 2015; Talbot, 2012)

Conclusion
Individual differences
Deceiver abilities (Bond & DePualo, 2008)
Social Norms (Panasiti et al., 2011)
Future caution

Conclusion
Individual differences
Deceiver abilities (Bond & DePualo, 2008)
Social Norms (Panasiti et al., 2011)
Future caution (Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter, 2012)

References
Aamondt, M. G. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner, 15, 6–11.
Abbate, C. S., Isgro, A. & Wicklund, R. A. (2006). A field experiment on perspective-taking, helping and self-awareness. Basic and applied social
psychology, 28(3), 283-287.
Avner, C. & Gorsky, P. (2006). Online deception: Prevalence, motivation and emotion. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9(1), 54-49.
Bak, J. Y., Kim, S. & Oh, A. (2012). Self-disclosure and relationship strength in twitter conversations. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics, 60–64.
Bazarova, N. N. & Yuan, C. (2013). Expertise recognition and influence in intercultural groups: Differences between face-to-face and computer-
mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 437-453.
Burgoon, J, K., Stoner, G. M., Bonito, J. A. & Dunbar, N. E. (2003). Trust and deception in mediated communication. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii
Int. Conference on System Sciences (1-11), Big Island HI.
Caspi, A. & Gorsky, P. (2006). Deception: Prevalence, motivation and emotion. CyberPsychology &Behavior, 9(1), 54-61.
Chao, C., & Tao, Y. (2012). Human Flesh Search: A Supplemental Review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 15(7), 350-356.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Ding, H. (2012). Grassroots emergency health risk communication and transmedia public participation: H1N1 flu, travelers from epicenters, and cyber
vigilantism. Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization December, 2012, Volume 3, Number (3)1, 15-35.
Fiore, A. T., & Donath, J. S. (2005). Homophily in online dating: When do you like someone like yourself? Computer-Human Interaction 2005, 1371–
1374.
Gaspar, J. P., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2013). The emotion deception model: A review of deception in negotiation and the role of emotion in
deception. Negotiation And Conflict Management Research,6(3), 160-179.

Granhag, P.A., Andersson, L.O., Stromwall, L.A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals’ beliefs about deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology,
9(1), 103-119.
Green, M. C. & Carpenter, J. M. (2011). Trust, deception and identity on the internet. In Z. Birchmeier & B. Dietz-Uhler & G. Stasser (Eds.), Strategic uses of social
technology: An interactive perspective of social psychology (40-62). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Hancock, J. (2007). Digital deception. In A. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes and U. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology (289-329). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Hancock, J. T. & Guillory, J. (2015). Deception with technology. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology (pp. 270-289).
Chichester, West sussex, UK Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hancock, J., Birnholtz, J., Bazarova, N., Guillory, J., Perlin, J. & Amos, B. (2009, April 4-9). Butler Lies: Awareness, deception and design. Proceedings of the 27th
International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (517-526), Boston,A, USA. New York, N.Y: ACM Press.
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S. & Woodworth, M. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication.
Discourse Processes, 45(1), 1-23.
Hancock, J., Gee, K., Ciaccio, K. & Lin, J. M. (2008, November, 8-12). I’m sad you’re sad: Emotional contagion in CMC. Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computer
supported cooperative work (295-298). New York, N.Y: ACM Press.
Hancock, J. T., Thom-Santelli, T. & Ritchie, T. (2004, April, 24-29).Deception and Design: The impact of communication technology on lying behaviour. CHI, Vienna,
Austria.

Hancock, J. T., Woodworth, M. T. & Goorha, S. (2010). See no evil: The effect of communication medium and motivation on
deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(4), 327-343.
Jian, L. C., Bazarova, N. N. & Hancock, J. T. (2013). From perception to behaviour: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of
intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 40(1), 125-143.
Lapidot-Lefler, N. & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers
in Human Behaivour, 28(2), 434-443.
Morin, A. (2011). Self-recognition, theory of mind and self-awareness: What side are you on? Laterality, 16(3), 367-383.
Naquin, C. E., Kurtzberg, T. R. & Belkin, L. Y. (2010). The finer points of lying online: E-mail versus pen and paper. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(2), 387-394.
Peris, R., Gimeno, M. A., Pinazo, D., Ortet, G., Carrero, V., Sanchiz, M. & Ibanez, I. (2002). Online chat rooms: Virtual spaces of
interaction for socially oriented people. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 5(1), 43-51.
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C. & Hancock, J. T. (2011, June, 19-24). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination.
Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1, (309-319). Stroudsburg, PA,
USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Reynolds, L., Smith, M. E., Birnholtz, J. P. & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Butler lies from both sides: Actions and perceptions of unavailability
management in texting. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (769-778). New
York, N.Y: ACM Press.

Sanchez, T. (2011, April). To catch a liar: A signal detection analysis of personality and lie detection. 39th Annual Western Pennsylvania
Undergraduate Psychology Conference. New Wilmington, PA.
Shawn, T. (2012). Evaluating the ability of law enforcement and mental health professionals to detect deception. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 73(3-B), 1832.
Toma, C. L. & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of
Communications, 62(1), 78-79.
Toma, C., Hancock, J. T. & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online
dating profiles. Personality and social Psychology Bullletin, 34(4), 1023-1036.
Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(2), 159-181.
Yamagishi, T. & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129-166.
Zhou, L. & Zhang, D. (2004, January, 5-8). Can online behaviour unveil deceivers? An exploratory investigation of deception in instant
messaging. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, California: IEEE
Computer Society Press.
Zhou, L., Sung, Y., & Zhang, D. (2013). Deception performance in online group negotiation and decision making: The effects of
deception experience and deception skill. Group Decision And Negotiation, 22(1), 153-172.

Deception detection online a qualitative study of social norms

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Deception detection online a qualitative study of social norms

Semelhante a Deception detection online a qualitative study of social norms (20)

Último

Último (20)

Deception detection online a qualitative study of social norms