In deception research, little consideration is given to how the framing of the question might impact the decision-making process used to reach a veracity judgment. People use terms such as “sure” to describe their uncertainty about an event (i.e., aleatory) and terms such as “chance” to describe their uncertainty about the world (i.e., epistemic). Presently, the effect of such uncertainty framing on veracity judgments was considered. By manipulating the veracity question wording the effect of uncertainty framing on deception detection was measured. The data show no difference in veracity judgments between the two uncertainty framing conditions, suggesting that these may operate on a robust and invariant cognitive process.

Automatic deception detection is a crucial task that has many applications both in direct physical and in computer-mediated human communication. Our focus is on automatic deception detection in text across cultures. In this context, we view culture through the prism of the individualism/collectivism dimension, and we approximate culture by using country as a proxy. Having as a starting point recent conclusions drawn from the social psychology discipline, we explore if differences in the usage of specific linguistic features of deception across cultures can be confirmed and attributed to cultural norms in respect to the individualism/collectivism divide. In addition, we investigate if a universal feature set for cross-cultural text deception detection tasks exists. We evaluate the predictive power of different feature sets and approaches. We create culture/language-aware classifiers by experimenting with a wide range of n-gram features from several levels of linguistic analysis, namely phonology, morphology and syntax, other linguistic cues like word and phoneme counts, pronouns use, etc., and token embeddings. We conducted our experiments over eleven data sets from five languages (English, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, and Romanian), from six countries (United States of America, Belgium, India, Russia, Mexico, and Romania), and we applied two classification methods, namely logistic regression and fine-tuned BERT models. The results showed that the undertaken task is fairly complex and demanding. Furthermore, there are indications that some linguistic cues of deception have cultural origins and are consistent in the context of diverse domains and data set settings for the same language. This is more evident for the usage of pronouns and the expression of sentiment in deceptive language. The results of this work show that the automatic deception detection across cultures and languages cannot be handled in unified manners and that such approaches should be augmented with knowledge about cultural differences and the domains of interest.

Current automatic deception detection approaches tend to rely on cues that are based either on specific lexical items or on linguistically abstract features that are not necessarily motivated by the psychology of deception. Notably, while approaches relying on such features can do well when the content domain is similar for training and testing, they suffer when content changes occur. We investigate new linguistically defined features that aim to capture specific details, a psychologically motivated aspect of truthful versus deceptive language that may be diagnostic across content domains. To ascertain the potential utility of these features, we evaluate them on data sets representing a broad sample of deceptive language, including hotel reviews, opinions about emotionally charged topics, and answers to job interview questions. We additionally evaluate these features as part of a deception detection classifier. We find that these linguistically defined specific detail features are most useful for cross-domain deception detection when the training data differ significantly in content from the test data, and particularly benefit classification accuracy on deceptive documents. We discuss implications of our results for general-purpose approaches to deception detection.