On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication

By Jeffrey T. Hancock, Lauren Curry, Saurabh Goorha, Michael Woodworth. 2007

491 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1362ff6863b141df147cacd32db16d761e09cb9d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Effect of Different Writing Tasks on Linguistic Style: A Case Study of the ROC Story Cloze Task (2017, background): “Several researchers have used stylometric features to predict deception (Newman et al., 2003; Hancock et al., 2007; Ott et al., 2011; Feng et al., 2012).”
Syntactic Stylometry for Deception Detection (2012, unknown): “Most are based on dictionary-based word counting using LIWC (Pennebaker et al., 2007) (e.g., Hancock et al. (2007), Vrij et al. (2007)), while some recent ones explored the use of machine learning techniques using simple lexico-syntactic patterns, such as n-grams and part-of-speech (POS) tags…”
What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles (2012, background): “, ‘‘no,’’ ‘‘not,’’ ‘‘never’’), strategies that indicate a lack of commitment toward the deceptive statement (e.g., DePaulo et al., 2003; Hancock et al., 2008; Newman et al., 2003).”
The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods (2010, unknown): “Hancock, Curry, Goorha, and Woodworth (2008) expanded these findings to study lying within pairs of participants over instant messenger.”
Fake News: A Survey of Research, Detection Methods, and Opportunities (2018, background): “eristics within news articles. 3.1 Deception Analysis and Detection Deception analysis aims to investigate style of deceptive content across various types of information, e.g., online communications [Hancock et al. 2007;Pak and Zhou2015;Rubin2010;Zhou et al. 2004b], reviews [Li et al. 2014; Mukherje”
Separating Facts from Fiction: Linguistic Models to Classify Suspicious and Trusted News Posts on Twitter (2017, methodology): “LIWC features have been successfully used for deception detection before (Hancock et al., 2007; Vrij et al., 2007; Mihalcea and Strapparava, 2009).”
Automatic deception detection in Italian court cases (2013, background): “This finding is interesting because it goes against the recurrent finding in the literature that people, when they lie, are prone to use other-references rather than self-references (Hancock et al. 2008; Newman et al. 2003).”
Impression Management and Retrospective Sense-Making in Corporate Narratives: A Social Psychology Perspective (2011, background): “, 2007), demographic differences, such as age and gender (Pennebaker and Stone, 2003), emotional issues, such as bereavement and depression (Gill and Oberlander, 2003; Pennebaker and King, 1999), and self-presentational dissimulation (Newman et al., 2003; Burgoon et al., 2003; Hancock et al., 2008).”
What Yelp Fake Review Filter Might Be Doing? (2013, background): “Also related is the task of psycholinguistic deception detection which investigates lying words (Hancock et al., 2008; Newman et al. 2003), untrue views (Mihalcea and Strapparava (2009), computer-mediated deception in roleplaying games (Zhou et al.”
Detecting Hoaxes, Frauds, and Deception in Writing Style Online (2012, background): “Lying-detection feature set: Our feature set includes features that were known to be effective in detecting lying type deception in computer mediated communications and typed documents [3], [8].”
Earnings management and annual report readability (2017, unknown): “The coefficient on MBE × LowPosEM(Comp) is Column I uses the modified Jones model of Dechow et al. (1995) to measure discretionary accruals, and the results remain essentially the same as those reported in Table 7, which uses the simpler Jones (1991) model.”
Identification of fraudulent financial statements using linguistic credibility analysis (2011, methodology): “Both statistical and data mining techniques have been used to classify and predict deception using linguistic cues in non-financial related documents [24,26].”