The prevalence of deception in computer-mediated communication and the risk of misjudgement based on deceptive information call for effective detection methods of deception. Extant models for online deception detection rely mainly on verbal behaviours of participants while largely ignoring context. Discourse behaviour analysis, which can better investigate the information in context, has been proved effective for online deception detection; nevertheless, these discourse behaviours have been analysed in isolation without referring to other behaviours in context. To achieve the ultimate goal of effective prediction of deception in synchronous computer-mediated communication, this research exploits temporal networks in uncovering the dynamics of deception behaviours, proposes novel deception detection methods using discourse network metrics as predictive features, and empirically evaluates the performances of deception detection methods incorporating three types of predictive features (non-discourse features, discourse features and discourse network metrics). The results suggest that discourse network features are more effective in detecting deception and incorporating these features with non-discourse and discourse features can significantly improve the performance of deception detection. The findings not only demonstrate the efficacy of structural features in deception detection but also offer both methodological and theoretical contributions to deception detection from the perspective of temporal network.
CECA. Trusted authentication industry development report on Chinese web sites in 2016. Report, CECA, Beijing, China, 2016.
3.
BurgoonJNunamakerJ.Toward computer-aided support for the detection of deception. Group Decis Negot2004; 13(1): 1–4.
4.
ZhouLWuJZhangD.Discourse cues to deception in the case of multiple receivers. Inform Manage2014; 51(6): 726–737.
5.
WuJZhouL.DOBNet: exploiting the discourse of deception behavior to uncover online deception strategies. Behav Inform Technol2015; 34(9): 936–948.
6.
BurgoonJKBMDillmanLSternLA.Adaptation in dyadic interaction: defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Commun Theor1993; 3(4): 295–316.
7.
BurgoonJKBullerDBGuerreroLK, et al. Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages. Commun Monogr1996; 63(1): 50–69.
8.
ZhouLBurgoonJKZhangD, et al. Language dominance in interpersonal deception in computer-mediated communication. Comp Hum Behav2004; 20(3): 381–402.
9.
DePauloBMLindsayJJMaloneBE, et al. Cues to deception. Psychol Bull2003; 129(1): 74–118.
10.
FullerCMBirosDPWilsonRL.Decision support for determining veracity via linguistic-based cues. Decis Supp Sys2009; 46(3): 695–703.
11.
ZhouLSungY.Cues to deception in online Chinese groups. In: Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 7–10 January 2008, pp. 146–153. New York: IEEE.
12.
HauchVBlandón-GitlinIMasipJ, et al. Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Pers Soc Psychol Rev2015; 19(4): 307–342.
13.
ZhouL.An empirical investigation of deception behavior in instant messaging. IEEE T Prof Commun2005; 48(2): 147–160.
14.
ConroyNJRubinVLChenY. Automatic deception detection: methods for finding fake news. In: Proceedings of the association for information science and technology annual meeting, St. Louis, MO, 6–10 November 2015, pp. 1–4. Silver Springs, MD: American Society for Information Science.
15.
StubbsM.Text and corpus analysis: computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
16.
MarcuD.The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
17.
HowarthD.Discourse (concepts in the social sciences). Buckingham: Open University, 2010.
18.
ZhouLSungY.Discourse cues to online deception. In: The quality in government and business symposium, at proceedings of the 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Big Island, HI, 4–7 January 2011, pp. 1–10. New York: IEEE.
19.
ZhouLBurgoonJKTwitchellDP, et al. A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication. J Manage Inform Syst2004; 20(4): 139–166.
20.
NewmanMLPennebakerJWBerryDS, et al. Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles. Pers Soc Psychol B2003; 29(5): 665–675.
21.
HancockJTCurryLGoorhaS, et al. Automated linguistic analysis of deceptive and truthful synchronous computer-mediated communication. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Big Island, HI, 6 January 2005, p. 22c. New York: IEEE.
22.
MihalceaRStrapparavaC. The lie detector: explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In: Joint conference of the 47th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 4th international joint conference on natural language processing of the Asian federation of natural language processing, Suntec, Singapore, 4 August 2009, pp. 309–312. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
23.
ZhangHFanZZhengJ-H, et al. An improving deception detection method in computer-mediated communication. J Netw2012; 7(11): 1811–1816.
24.
PakJZhouL. A comparison of features for automatic deception detection in synchronous computer-mediated communication. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on intelligence and security informatics, Baltimore, MD, 27–29 May 2015, pp. 141–143. New York: IEEE.
25.
LeifeldP.Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: a discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Stud J2013; 41(1): 169–198.
26.
StoddartMCTindallDB.Canadian news media and the cultural dynamics of multilevel climate governance. Environ Polit2015; 24(3): 401–422.
27.
LeifeldPHaunssS.Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. Euro J Polit Res2012; 51(3): 382–409.
BravermanMEtesamiOMosselE.Mafia: a theoretical study of players and coalitions in a partial information environment. Ann Appl Probab2008; 18(3): 825–846.
LoperEBirdS. NLTK: the natural language toolkit. In: Proceedings of the ACL-02 workshop on effective tools and methodologies for teaching natural language processing and computational linguistics, Philadelphia, PA, 7 July 2002, pp. 63–70. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
32.
PDTB-Group. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 annotation manual. Report, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2008.
33.
TonelliSRiccardiGPrasadR, et al. Annotation of discourse relations for conversational spoken dialogs. In: Proceedings of the international conference on language resources and evaluation, Valletta, 17–23 May 2010, pp. 2084–2090. Luxembourg: European Language Resources Association.
34.
StolckeARiesKCoccaroN, et al. Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Comput Linguist2000; 26(3): 339–373.
35.
DonohueWARobertoAJ.An empirical examination of three models of integrative and distributive bargaining. Int J Confl Manage1996; 7(3): 209–229.
36.
KrippendorffK.Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2004.
37.
ZhouLBurgoonJKTwitchellDP. A longitudinal analysis of language behavior of deception in e-mail. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligence and security informatics, Tucson, AZ, 2–3 June 2003, pp. 102–110. Cham: Springer.
38.
FreemanLCRoederDMulhollandRR.Centrality in social networks: II. Experimental results. Soc Networks1979; 2(2): 119–141.
39.
PageLBrinSMotwaniR, et al. The PageRank citation ranking: bringing order to the web. Report, Stanford Infolab, Stanford, CA, 1999.
40.
WhiteDRBorgattiSP.Betweenness centrality measures for directed graphs. Soc Networks1994; 16(4): 335–346.
41.
BrassDJBurkhardtME.Potential power and power use: an investigation of structure and behavior. Acad Manage J1993; 36(3): 441–470.
42.
Hafner-BurtonEMMontgomeryAH.Centrality in politics: how networks confer power. Political Networks Conference. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 2010. https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pnconfs_2010/9 (accessed 11 January 2019).
43.
LandherrAFriedlBHeidemannJ.A critical review of centrality measures in social networks. Bus Inf Syst Eng2010; 2(6): 371–385.
44.
ScottJ.Social network analysis: a handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1992.
45.
SmithMAShneidermanBMilic-FraylingN, et al. Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on communities and technologies, University Park, PA, 25–27 June 2009, pp. 255–264. New York: ACM.
46.
FullerCMBirosDPDelenD.An investigation of data and text mining methods for real world deception detection. Expert Syst Appl2011; 38(7): 8392–8398.
47.
CrawfordMKhoshgoftaarTMPrusaJD, et al. Survey of review spam detection using machine learning techniques. J Big Data2015; 2(1): 23.
48.
CampbellCYingY.Learning with support vector machines. Synth Lect Artif Intell Mach Learn2011; 5(1): 1–95.
49.
MüllerKRMikaSRätschG, et al. An introduction to kernel-based learning algorithms. IEEE Trans Neural Netw2001; 12(2): 181–201.
50.
FaridDMZhangLRahmanCM, et al. Hybrid decision tree and naïve Bayes classifiers for multi-class classification tasks. Expert Syst Appl2014; 41(4): 1937–1946.
51.
LinYWangJZouR.An improved Naïve Bayes Classifier method in public opinion analysis. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on computer engineering and networks, Shanghai, China, 19–20 July 2015, pp. 219–225. Cham: Springer.
52.
SamarasingheS.Neural networks for applied sciences and engineering: from fundamentals to complex pattern recognition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016.
53.
AydinMNPerdahciNZ.Dynamic network analysis of online interactive platform. Inform Syst Front. Epub ahead of print 15 February 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-017-9740-8.
54.
HallMA.Correlation-based feature subset selection for machine learning. PhD Thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, 1998.
55.
BurgoonJKQinT.The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. J Lang Soc Psychol2006; 25(1): 76–96.
