Abstract:Introduction: Forensic interviewing entails practitioners interviewing suspects to secure valid information and elicit confessions. Such interviews are often conducted in police stations but may also occur in field settings such as border crossings, security checkpoints, bus terminals, and sports venues. Because these real-world interviews often lack experimental control and ground truth, this investigation explored whether results of non-forensic interviews generalize to forensic ones. Methods: Organizational espionage was simulated to determine (1) what verbal signals distinguish truth from deception, (2) whether deception in groups aligns with deception in dyads, and (3) whether non-forensic venues can be generalized to forensic ones. Engaging in a mock hiring deliberation, participants (4–5 strangers) reviewed and discussed resumes of potential candidates. Surreptitiously, two group members assigned the role of "organizational spies" attempted to persuade the group to hire an inferior candidate. Each group member presented notes from an interview of "their" candidate, followed by a discussion of all candidates. Spies were to use any means possible, including deception, to persuade others to select their candidate. A financial incentive was offered for having one's candidate chosen. The interview reports and discussions were transcribed and analyzed with SPLICE, an automated text analysis program. Results: Deceivers were perceived as less trustworthy than truth-tellers, especially when the naïve players won but overall, deceivers were difficult for non-spies to detect even though they were seen as less trustworthy than the naïve participants. Deceivers' language was more complex and exhibited an "echoing" strategy of repeating others' opinions. This collusion evolved naturally, without pre-planning. No other verbal differences were evident, which suggests that the difference between spies and non-spies was subtle and difficult for truth-tellers to spot. Discussion: Whether deception can be successfully detected hinges on a variety of factors including the deceiver's skill to disguise and the detector's ability to sense and process information. Furthermore, the group dynamics and communication context subtly moderate how deception manifests and influence the accuracy of detecting ulterior motives. Our future investigations could encompass non-verbal communication channels and verbal patterns rooted in content, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of deception detection.

Detecting Deception through Linguistic Analysis

To Tell The Truth: Language of Deception and Language Models

Which Spoken Language Markers Identify Deception in High-Stakes Settings? Evidence From Earnings Conference Calls

Domain-Independent Deception: A New Taxonomy and Linguistic Analysis

Analysing Deception in Witness Memory through Linguistic Styles in Spontaneous Language

Detecting ulterior motives from verbal cues in group deliberations

Domain-Independent Deception: Definition, Taxonomy and the Linguistic Cues Debate

Fraud detection in telephone conversations for financial services using linguistic features

A Roadmap for Multilingual, Multimodal Domain Independent Deception Detection

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

Deception Detection based on Fake Linguistic Cues

Text Analysis in Adversarial Settings: Does Deception Leave a Stylistic Trace?

On the Lexical Characteristics of Deception

A multi-dimensional analysis of deception

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

Deciphering Deception: How Different Rhetoric of AI Language Impacts Users' Sense of Truth in LLMs

Is interactional dissynchrony a clue to deception? Insights from automated analysis of nonverbal visual cues

Linguistic Cues of Deception in a Multilingual April Fools' Day Context

Deception detection in text and its relation to the cultural dimension of individualism/collectivism

Can a Robot Catch You Lying? A Machine Learning System to Detect Lies During Interactions

Deception Detection: Using Machine Learning to Analyze 911 Calls