Abstract

In this article, we wish to foster a dialogue between theory-based and classification-oriented stylometric approaches regarding deception detection. To do so, we review how cue-based and model-based stylometric systems are used to detect deceit. Baseline methods, common cues, recent methods, and field studies are presented. After reviewing how computational stylometric tools have been used for deception detection purposes, we show that the he stylometric methods and tools cannot be applied to deception detection problems on the field in their current state. We then identify important advantages and issues of stylometric tools. Advantages encompass quickness of extraction and robustness, allowing for best interviewing practices. Issues are discussed in terms of oral data transcription issues and automation bias emergence. We finally establish future research proposals: We emphasize the importance of baseline assessment and the need for transcription methods, and the concern of ethical standards regarding the applicability of stylometry for deception detection purposes in practical settings, while encouraging the cooperation between linguists, psychologists, engineers, and practitioners requiring deception detection methods.

Highlights

  • The general public believes that it is possible to detect lying by observing nonverbal cues, yet these cues do not improve detection abilities (e.g., Bogaard et al, 2016)

  • We present and define stylometry as a subfield of authorship attribution and outline how it has been adapted to deal with the deception detection problem

  • By relying solely on Bag of Words (BoW) approaches, stylometry appears to be as effective on real data than on experimental data, and at the same accuracy level as common human judgment methods used to detect lying (Vrij, 2018)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The general public believes that it is possible to detect lying by observing nonverbal cues, yet these cues do not improve detection abilities (e.g., Bogaard et al, 2016). For these reasons, individuals who have not been trained to detect reliable cues (i.e., based on experimental evidence) typically detect lying at a rate only slightly higher than chance (i.e., 54%; see Bond and DePaulo, 2006, 2008; Hauch et al, 2017).

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.