Abstract:Historically, deception detection research has relied on factorial analyses of response accuracy to make inferences. However, this practice overlooks important sources of variability resulting in potentially misleading estimates and may conflate response bias with participants' underlying sensitivity to detect lies from truths. We showcase an alternative approach using a signal detection theory (SDT) with generalized linear mixed models framework to address these limitations. This SDT approach incorporates individual differences from both judges and senders, which are a principal source of spurious findings in deception research. By avoiding data transformations and aggregations, this methodology outperforms traditional methods and provides more informative and reliable effect estimates. This well-established framework offers researchers a powerful tool for analyzing deception data and advances our understanding of veracity judgments. All code and data are openly available.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is the limitations in traditional deception - detection research methods. Specifically, traditional methods rely on factor analysis to evaluate response accuracy. This method ignores important sources of variation, leading to potentially misleading estimates and may confound response bias with the potential sensitivity of participants to identify lies and truths. To address these issues, the authors propose a new method based on Signal Detection Theory (SDT) combined with Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM). This method can better handle individual differences, avoid data transformation and aggregation, and thus provide more accurate and reliable effect estimates. ### Background of the Paper In deception - detection research, researchers usually focus on the decision - making processes of different individuals (i.e., judges), or study how various manipulations (such as providing training or changing the type of lies) affect authenticity judgments. Traditional deception - detection analysis plans involve two to four independent analyses in an attempt to analyze the accuracy and bias of judges. These analyses usually include calculating accuracy rates and biases, but this method has several problems: 1. **Confounding Accuracy and Bias**: Using the proportion of correct percentages as a measure of accuracy confounds response tendencies (such as guessing and bias) with actual accuracy. 2. **Ignoring Individual Differences**: Traditional analysis methods fail to fully consider individual differences between judges and senders, which may lead to inaccurate and biased findings. 3. **Data Transformation and Aggregation**: Traditional analysis methods require data transformation and aggregation, which may introduce additional errors. ### Proposed Method To overcome the above problems, the authors propose a new method based on Signal Detection Theory (SDT) and Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM). This method has the following advantages: 1. **Directly Modeling Binary Judgments**: There is no need to transform or aggregate data, and directly model the binary judgments of judges ("lie" or "truth"). 2. **Handling Complex Designs**: It can handle complex experimental designs, including repeated measures, unbalanced designs, and missing data. 3. **Capturing Individual Differences**: Through the random - effects model, consider the individual differences of both judges and senders simultaneously. 4. **Improving Estimation Precision**: Through the partial pooling strategy, improve the precision of parameter estimation, especially in the case of repeated measures and unbalanced designs. ### Specific Implementation of the Method The authors use Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) in the Bayesian framework, and adopt the Bernoulli probability distribution and Probit link function to analyze deception - detection data. The specific steps include: 1. **Data Preparation**: Ensure that the data is stored in long format, with each data point occupying one row, and the responses of judges are coded as 0 and 1 (0 represents "truth", 1 represents "lie"). 2. **Model Definition**: Use the `brms` package in the R language to define the model, regress "sayLie" (0 = "truth", 1 = "lie") with the intercept and the slope of "isLie" (whether the stimulus is a lie). 3. **Random Effects**: Specify relevant random effects to capture the variation between participants and stimuli. 4. **Model Fitting**: Use the `brm()` function to fit the model, and check the convergence and fitting of the model. ### Conclusion By using the method that combines SDT and GLMM, the authors provide a more flexible and powerful tool to analyze deception - detection data. This method can not only solve the limitations of traditional methods, but also provide more accurate and reliable effect estimates, thus promoting further research in the field of deception detection.

A Tutorial for Deception Detection Analysis or: How I Learned to Stop Aggregating Veracity Judgments and Embraced Signal Detection Theory Mixed Models

To Tell The Truth: Language of Deception and Language Models

An empirical evaluation of interpersonal deception theory in a real-world, high-stakes environment

Nothing but lies: improving the validity of neural predictors of deception

Deception detection with machine learning: A systematic review and statistical analysis

Can Deception Detection Go Deeper? Dataset, Evaluation, and Benchmark for Deception Reasoning

Can lies be faked? Comparing low-stakes and high-stakes deception video datasets from a Machine Learning perspective

Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions

Modeling and Analysis of Leaky Deception using Signaling Games with Evidence

Introducing Representations of Facial Affect in Automated Multimodal Deception Detection

UNIDECOR: A Unified Deception Corpus for Cross-Corpus Deception Detection

Automatic Long-Term Deception Detection in Group Interaction Videos

Detecting Deception through Linguistic Analysis

Analysis, Evaluation, and Future Directions on Multimodal Deception Detection

Deception detection using multimodal fusion approaches

Deception Detection: Using Machine Learning to Analyze 911 Calls

Towards a Cognitive Theory of Cyber Deception

The Electrocortical Signature of Successful and Unsuccessful Deception in a Face-to-Face Social Interaction

SEPSIS: I Can Catch Your Lies -- A New Paradigm for Deception Detection

Detecting ulterior motives from verbal cues in group deliberations

How Entangled is Factuality and Deception in German?