More specifically, this meta-analysis showed that deceitful narratives differed mainly from truthful ones in terms of content, and slightly in terms of objective vocal and nonverbal cues. 95), an increase in the interface between language and cognition during deceit has emerged. After the meta-analysis ran by DePaulo and colleagues (2003, p. 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). 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 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. Issues are discussed in terms of oral data transcription issues and automation bias emergence. Advantages encompass quickness of extraction and robustness, allowing for best interviewing practices. We then identify important advantages and issues of stylometric tools. 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. Baseline methods, common cues, recent methods, and field studies are presented. To do so, we review how cue-based and model-based stylometric systems are used to detect deceit. In this article, we wish to foster a dialogue between theory-based and classification-oriented stylometric approaches regarding deception detection. 3Laboratoire UPR APSY-v, Department of Psychology, Université de Nîmes, Nîmes, France.2Laboratoire Cognitions Humaine et Artificielle, Department of Psychology, Université Paris 8, Saint-Denis, France.1Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication, Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.Frédéric Tomas 1,2* Olivier Dodier 3 Samuel Demarchi 2
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |