Matthew L. Jensen
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
One of the most pernicious threats to information quality comes through perpetration of deception by information suppliers. Deception undermines many critical dimensions of information quality, such as accuracy, completeness, and believability. Despite this threat, information gatherers are ill equipped to assess the credibility of information suppliers. This work presents a prototype system that examines messages gathered during direct, face-to-face information gathering. The system unobtrusively identifies kinesic and linguistic features that may indicate deception in information suppliers’ messages. System use was found to significantly improve assessment ability in between-subjects and within-subjects tests. The improved ability to accurately assess credibility during face-to-face interactions should yield higher information quality.
- Biros, D., George, J., and Zmud, R. 2002. Inducing sensitivity to deception in order to improve deception detection and task accuracy. MIS Quart. 26. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Biros, D. P., George, J. F., and Zmud, R. W. 2005. Inside the fence: Sensitizing decision makers to the possibility of deception in the data they use. MIS Quart. Exec. 4.Google Scholar
- Bond, C. F. and DePaulo, B. M. 2006. Accuracy of deception judgments. Person. Soc. Psych. Rev. 10, 214--234.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bovee, M., Srivastava, R. P., and Mak, B. 2003. A conceptual framework and belief-function approach to assessing overall information quality. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 18, 51--74.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Buller, D., Burgoon, J., White, C., and Ebesu, A. 1994. Interpersonal deception: VII. Behavioral profiles of falsification, equivocation and concealment. J. Lang. Soc. Psych. 13, 366--395.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Buller, D. B. and Burgoon, J. K. 1996. Interpersonal deception theory. Comm. Theo. 6, 203--242.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Burgoon, J. K. 1976. The ideal source: A reexamination of source credibility measurement. Comm. Stud. 27, 200--206.Google Scholar
- Burgoon, J. K., Jensen, M. L., Kruse, J., Meservy, T. O., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2007. Deception and intention detection. In Handbooks in Information Systems, Vol. 2, H. Chen, T. S. Raghu, R. Ramesh, A. Vinze, and D. Zeng Eds., Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Burgoon, J. K., Twitchell, D. P., Jensen, M. L., Adkins, M., Kruse, J., Deokar, A., Lu, S., Metaxas, D. N., Nunamaker, J. F., and Younger, R. E. 2009. Detecting concealment in transportation screening. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transpo. Syst. 10, 103--112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cunningham, H. 2002. GATE, a general architecture for text engineering. Comput. Human. 36, 223--254.Google ScholarCross Ref
- DePaulo, B., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J., and Muhlenbruck, L. 1997. The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Person. Soc. Psych. Rev. 1, 346--357.Google ScholarCross Ref
- DePaulo, B., Lindsay, J., Malone, B., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., and Cooper, H. 2003. Cues to deception. Psych. Bull. 129, 74--118.Google ScholarCross Ref
- DePaulo, B. M. and Kashy, D. A. 1998. Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 74, 63--79.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ekman, P. 1985. Telling Lies. W. W. Norton & Company, New York.Google Scholar
- Fisher, C. W., Chengalur-Smith, I. S., and Ballou, D. P. 2003. The impact of experience and time on the use of data quality information in decision making. Inform. Syst. Resear. 14, 170. Google ScholarDigital Library
- George, J. F., Biros, D. P., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F., Crews, J. M., Cao, J., Marrett, K., Adkins, M., Kruse, J., and Lin, M. 2008. The role of e-training in protecting information assets against deception attacks. MIS Quart. Exec. 7.Google Scholar
- Global Deception Research Team. 2006. A world of lies. J. Cross-Cult. Psych. 37, 60--74.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., and Ram, S. 2004. Design science in information systems research. Manage. Inform. Syst. Quart. 28, 75--106. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jensen, M. L., Meservy, T. O., Burgoon, J. K., and Nunamaker, J. F. Automatic, multimodal evaluation of human interaction. Group Decision Negotiation. To appear.Google Scholar
- Klein, B. D., Goodhue, D. L., and Davis, G. B. 1997. Can humans detect errors in data? Impact of base rates, incentives, and goals. MIS Quart. 21, 169--194. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kraut, R. 1980. Humans as lie detectors. J. Comm. 30, 209--216.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Levine, T. R., Feeley, T. H., Mccornack, S. A., M., H., and Harms, C. M. 2005. Testing the effects of nonverbal behavior training on accuracy in deception detection with the inclusion of a bogus training control group. West. J. Comm. 69, 203--217.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., Park, H. S., and Hughes, M. 2006. Deception detection accuracy is a predictable linear function of message veracity base-rate: A formal test of Park and Levine’s probability model. Comm. Monog. 73, 243--260.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., and McCornack, S. A. 1999. Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.” Comm. Monog. 66, 125--144.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lu, S., Tsechpenakis, G., Metaxas, D. N., Jensen, M. L., and Kruse, J. 2005. Blob analysis of the head and hands: A method for deception detection. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Science. (CD/ROM), IEEE Computer Society Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McCornack, S. A. and Parks, M. R. 1986. Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. In Communication Yearbook. M. L. McLaughlin Ed. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
- McCroskey, J. C. and Young, T. J. 1981. Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Comm. Stud. 32, 24--34.Google Scholar
- Meservy, T. O., Jensen, M. L., Kruse, J., Burgoon, J. K., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2005a. Automatic extraction of deceptive behavioral cues from video. In Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference. Springer Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meservy, T. O., Jensen, M. L., Kruse, J., Twitchell, D. P., Tsechpenakis, G., Burgoon, J. K., Metaxas, D. N., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2005b. Deception detection through automatic, unobtrusive analysis of nonverbal behavior. IEEE Intell. Syst. 20. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., and McCann, R. M. 2003. Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In Communication Yearbook 27, 293--336.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nelson, R. R., Todd, P. A., and Wixom, B. H. 2005. Antecedents of information and system quality: An empirical examination within the context of data warehousing. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 21, 199--235. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pipino, L. L., Lee, Y. W., and Wang, R. Y. 2002. Data quality assessment. Comm. ACM 45, 211--218. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Qin, T., Burgoon, J. K., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2004. An exploratory study on promising cues in deception detection and application of decision trees. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Strong, D. M., Lee, Y. W., and Wang, R. Y. 1997. Data quality in context. Comm. ACM 40, 103--110. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Swets, J. A. 1986. Indices of discrimination or diagnostic accuracy: Their ROCs and implied models. Psych. Bull. 99, 301--340.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Swets, J. A. 2000. Enhancing diagnostic decisions. In Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader, T. Connolly, H. R. Arkes and K. R. Hammond Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Tayi, G. K. and Ballou, D. P. 1998. Examining data quality. Comm. ACM 41, 54--57. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Twitchell, D. P. and Nunamaker, J. F. 2004. Speech Act Profiling: A probabilistic method for analyzing persistent conversations and their participants. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (CD/ROM), IEEE Computer Society Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vrij, A. 2000. Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and Implications for Professional Practice. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Wand, Y. and Wang, R. Y. 1996. Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Comm. ACM 39, 86--95. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wang, R. Y. and Strong, D. M. 1996. Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 12, 5--33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Whissell, C., Fournier, M., Pelland, R., Weir, D., and Makarec, K. 1986. A dictionary of affect in language: IV. Reliability, validity, and applications. Percept. Motor Skills 62, 875--888.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yates, F. J. 1990. Judgment and Decision Making. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Twitchell, D. P., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2004a. Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision Negotiation.Google Scholar
- Zhou, L., Twitchell, D. P., Qin, T., Burgoon, J. K., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2003. An Exploratory Study into Deception Detection in Text-Based Computer-Mediated Communication. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (CD/ROM), IEEE Computer Society Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhou, L., Twitchell, D. P., Qin, T., Burgoon, J. K., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2004b. Toward the automatic prediction of deception---An empirical comparison of classification methods. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 20, 139--166. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., and Rosenthal, R. 1981. Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, L. Berkowitz Ed. Academic Press, New York, NY, 1--59.Google Scholar
- Zuckerman, M. and Driver, R. E. 1985. Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In Multichannel Integrations of Nonverbal Behavior, A. W. Siegman and S. Feldstein Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Judging the Credibility of Information Gathered from Face-to-Face Interactions
Recommendations
Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web
The purpose of this study is to investigate factors influencing students' perception of the credibility of scholarly information on the web. In addition to the four types of source credibility proposed by previous studies (presumed credibility, reputed ...
Investigating Perceived Message Credibility and Detection Accuracy of Fake and Real Information Across Information Types and Modalities.
CHI EA '23: Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Mis-)information thrives on social media, so it has become increasingly important for users to tell real from misleading content because erroneously following misinformation can cause serious consequences. In this study, we investigated users’ ...
How Can Critical Thinking Be Used to Assess the Credibility of Online Information?
Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication TechnologyAbstractThe prevalence of unverified information on the internet and the associated potential adverse effect on society led to the development of a number of models and theories to assess the credibility of online information. Existing research consists ...
Comments