Linguistic cues to deception and perceived deception in interview dialogues

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

56 Scopus citations

Abstract

We explore deception detection in interview dialogues. We analyze a set of linguistic features in both truthful and deceptive responses to interview questions. We also study the perception of deception, identifying characteristics of statements that are perceived as truthful or deceptive by interviewers. Our analysis show significant differences between truthful and deceptive question responses, as well as variations in deception patterns across gender and native language. This analysis motivated our selection of features for machine learning experiments aimed at classifying globally deceptive speech. Our best classification performance is 72.74 F1-Score (about 27% better than human performance), which is achieved using a combination of linguistic features and individual traits.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationLong Papers
PublisherAssociation for Computational Linguistics (ACL)
Pages1941-1950
Number of pages10
ISBN (Electronic)9781948087278
StatePublished - 2018
Externally publishedYes
Event2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL HLT 2018 - New Orleans, United States
Duration: 1 Jun 20186 Jun 2018

Publication series

NameNAACL HLT 2018 - 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies - Proceedings of the Conference
Volume1

Conference

Conference2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL HLT 2018
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityNew Orleans
Period1/06/186/06/18

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Association for Computational Linguistics.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Linguistic cues to deception and perceived deception in interview dialogues'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this