Improving Human Deception Detection Using Algorithmic Feedback

References

• Abeler J, Nosenzo D, Raymond C (2019) Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica 87(4):1115–1153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal N, Moehring A, Rajpurkar P, Salz T (2023) Combining human expertise with artificial intelligence: Experimental evidence from radiology. NBER Working Paper No. 31422, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Allen RT, Choudhury R (2022) Algorithm-augmented work and domain experience: The countervailing forces of ability and aversion. Organ. Sci. 33(1):149–169.Link, Google Scholar
• Azaria A, Richardson A, Kraus S (2015) An agent for deception detection in discussion based environments. CSCW’15: Proc. 18th ACM Conf. Comput. Supported Cooperative Work Soc. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 218–227.Google Scholar
• Baron J (2000) Thinking and Deciding, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Becker GM, Degroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential model. Behav. Sci. 9(3):226–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belot M, Bhaskar V, van De Ven J (2009) Promises and cooperation: Evidence from a TV game show. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 73(3):396–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belot M, Bhaskar V, van De Ven J (2012) Can observers predict trustworthiness? Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(1):246–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belot M, van de Ven J (2017) How private is private information? The ability to spot deception in an economic game. Experiment. Econom. 20(1):19–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjamin DJ (2019) Errors in probabilistic reasoning and judgment biases. Bernheim D, DellaVigna S, Laibson D, eds. Handbook of Behavioral Economics (Elsevier Press, Amsterdam).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bijlstra G, Dotsch R (2011) FaceReader 4 emotion classification performance on images from the Radboud Faces database. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Social and Cultural Psychology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Boersma P, Weenink D (2020) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. V. 6.2.23. Accessed October 13, 2020, http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
• Bond CF, DePaulo BM (2006) Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 10(3):214–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brooks B, Frankel A, Kamenica E (2024) Comparisons of signals. Amer. Econom. Rev. 114(9):2981–3006.Google Scholar
• Bundorf K, Polyakova M, Tai-Seale M (2019) How do humans interact with algorithms? Experimental evidence from health insurance. NBER Working Paper No. 25976, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Burton JW, Stein MK, Jensen TB (2020) A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. Behav. Decision Making 33(2):220–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centorrino S, Djemai E, Hopfensitz A, Milinski M, Seabright P (2015a) Honest signaling in trust interactions: Smiles rated as genuine induce trust and signal higher earning opportunities. Evolution Human Behav. 36(1):8–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centorrino S, Djemai E, Hopfensitz A, Milinski M, Seabright P (2015b) A model of smiling as a costly signal of cooperation opportunities. Adapt. Human Behav. Physiology 1:325–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan MS, Jones CR, Hall Jamieson K, Albarracín D (2017) Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psych. Sci. 28(11):1531–1546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dave C (2017) Confirmation bias with motivated beliefs. Games Econom. Behav. 104:1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnership. Econometrica 74(6):1579–1601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Gneezy U, Rasocha V (2021) Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 189:234–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen D, Hopfenstiz A, van Leeuwen B, van de Ven J (2019) The strategic display of emotions. CentER Discussion Paper 2019-014, Center for Economic Research (CentER), Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Chen X, Ita Levitan S, Levine M, Mandic M, Hirschberg J (2020) Acoustic-prosodic and lexical cues to deception and trust: Deciphering how people detect lies. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics 8:199–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chugunova M, Sele D (2022) We and it: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 99:101897.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conlon JJ, Mani M, Rao G, Ridley M, Schilbach F (2022) Not learning from others. NBER Working Paper No. 30378, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Constancio AS, Tsunoda DF, Silva HDFN, Silveira JMD, Carvalho DR (2023) Deception detection with machine learning: A systematic review and statistical analysis. PLoS One 18(2):e0281323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crawford VP, Sobel J (1982) Strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50(6):1431–1449.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danz D, Vesterlund L, Wilson A (2022) Belief elicitation and behavioral incentive compatibility. Amer. Econom. Rev. 112(9):2851–2883.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darai D, Gratz S (2013) Attraction and cooperative behavior. Department of Economics Working Paper No. 82, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
• Dell’Acqua F (2022) Falling asleep at the wheel: Human/AI collaboration in a field experiment on HR recruiters. Working paper, Laboratory for Innovation Science, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Dietvorst BJ, Simmons JP, Massey C (2018) Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Sci. 64(3):1155–1170.Link, Google Scholar
• Dijkstra J (1999) User agreement with incorrect expert system advice. Behav. Inform. Tech. 18(6):399–411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg M, Kirchsteiger G (2004) A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 47(2):268–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dwenger N, Lohse T (2019) Do individuals successfully cover up their lies? Evidence from a compliance experiment. J. Econom. Psych. 71:74–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dykstra H, Exley CL, Niederle M (2022) When do individuals give up agency? The role of decision avoidance. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Eil D, Rao JM (2011) The good news-bad news effect: Asymmetric processing of objective information about yourself. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 3(2):114–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ekman P (1970) Universal facial expressions of emotion. Calif. Mental Health Res. Digest 8:151–158.Google Scholar
• Ekman P (2009) Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (W.W. Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Rabin M (1996) Cheap talk. J. Econom. Perspect. 10(3):103–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Föllmi-Heusi F (2013) Lies in disguise–An experimental study on cheating. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11(3):525–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman J (2002) Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 38(4):367–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U (2005) Deception: The role of consequences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(1):384–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Rockenbach B, Serra-Garcia M (2013) Measuring lying aversion. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93:293–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Saccardo S, Serra-Garcia M, van Veldhuizen R (2020) Bribing the self. Games Econom. Behav. 120:917–946.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2008) The Elements of Statistical Learning (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Smith AM (2009) An update on Bayesian updating. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 69(2):125–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu A, Ma S (2021) Persuading investors: A video-based study. NBER Working Paper No. 29048, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2013) An Introduction to Statistical Learning (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamenica E (2019) Bayesian persuasion and information design. Annual Rev. Econom. 11:249–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapoor S, Cantrell E, Peng K, Pham TH, Bail CA, Gundersen OE, Hofman JM, et al. (2024) REFORMS: Consensus-based recommendations for machine-learning-based science. Sci. Adv. 10(18):eadk3452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karni E (2009) A mechanism for eliciting probabilities. Econometrica 77(2):603–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim H, Glaeser EL, Hillis A, Kominers SD, Luca M (2024) Decision authority and the returns to algorithms. Strategic Management J. 45(4):619–648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinberg B, Verschuere B (2021) How humans impair automated deception detection performance. Acta Psych. 213:103250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinberg J, Lakkaraju H, Leskovec J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S (2018) Human decisions and machine predictions. Quart. J. Econom. 133(1):237–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konrad K, Lohse T, Qari S (2014) Deception choice and self-selection: The importance of being earnest. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 107:25–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leib M, Köbis N, Rilke RM, Hagens M, Irlenbusch B (2024) Corrupted by algorithms? How AI-generated and human-written advice shape (dis) honesty. Econom. J. 134(658):766–784.Google Scholar
• List JA (2006) Friend or foe? A natural experiment of the prisoner’s dilemma. Rev. Econom. Statist. 88(3):463–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loijens L, Krips O, Grieco F, van Kuilenburg H, van den Uyl M, Ivan P (2016) FaceReader: Tool for Automatic Analysis of Facial Expressions: Reference Manual Version 7 (Noldus Information Technology, Netherlands).Google Scholar
• Longoni C, Bonezzi A, Morewedge CK (2018) Consumer reluctance toward medical artificial intelligence: The underlying role of uniqueness neglect. Gershoff A, Kozinets R, White T, eds. Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 46 (Association for Consumer Research, Duluth, MN), 63–67.Google Scholar
• Möbius MM, Niederle M, Niehaus P, Rosenblat SR (2022) Managing self-confidence: Theory and experimental evidence. Management Sci. 68(11):7793–8514.Link, Google Scholar
• Mynatt CR, Doherty ME, Tweney RD (1977) Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. Quart. J. Experiment. Psych. 29(1):85–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nickerson R (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. General Psych. 2(2):175–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oberholzer-Gee F, Waldfogel J, White M (2010) Friend or foe? Cooperation and learning in high-stakes games. Rev. Econom. Statist. 92(1):179–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ockenfels A, Selten R (2000) An experiment on the hypothesis of involuntary truth-telling in bargaining. Games Econom. Behav. 33(1):90–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peer E, Rothschild D, Gordon A, Evernden Z, Damer E (2022) Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behav. Res. Methods 54:1643–1662.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pennycook G, Bear A, Collins ET, Rand DG (2020) The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Sci. 66(11):4944–4957.Link, Google Scholar
• Perez-Rosas V, Abouelenien M, Mihalcea R, Burzo M (2015) Deception detection using real-life trial data. Proc. ACM Internat. Conf. Multimodal Interaction (ICMI 2015) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 59–66.Google Scholar
• Promberger M, Baron J (2006) Do patients trust computers? Behav. Decision Making 19(5):455–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prome SA, Ragavan NA, Islam MR, Asirvatham D, Jegathesan AJ (2024) Deception detection using ML and DL techniques: A systematic review. Natl. Language Processing J. 6:100057.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Amer. Econom. Rev. 83(5):1281–1302.Google Scholar
• Saccardo S, Serra-Garcia M (2023) Cognitive flexibility or moral commitment? Evidence of demand for moral commitment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 113(2):396–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schotter A, Trevino I (2014) Belief elicitation in the laboratory. Annual Rev. Econom. 6:103–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Serra-Garcia M, Gneezy U (2021) Mistakes, overconfidence and the effect of sharing on detecting lies. Amer. Econom. Rev. 111(10):3160–3183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stevenson M, Doleac JL (2023) Algorithmic risk assessment in the hands of humans. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 16(4):382–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turmunkh U, van den Assem MJ, van Dolder D (2019) Malleable lies: Communication and cooperation in a high stakes TV game show. Management Sci. 65(10):4795–4812.Link, Google Scholar
• van den Assem MJ, van Dolder D, Thaler RH (2012) Split or steal? Cooperative behavior when the stakes are large. Management Sci. 58(1):2–20.Link, Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen B, Noussair CN, Offerman T, Suetens S, van Veelen M, van de Ven J (2018) Predictably angry–Facial cues provide a credible signal of destructive behavior. Management Sci. 64(7):3352–3364.Link, Google Scholar
• Varga M, Visu-Petra G, Miclea M, Visu-Petra L (2015) The “good cop, bad cop” effect in the RT-based concealed information test: Exploring the effect of emotional expressions displayed by a virtual investigator. PLoS One 10(2):e0116087.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Schenk A, Klockmann V, Bonnefon JF, Rahwan I, Köbis N (2024) Lie detection algorithms attract few users but vastly increase accusation rates. iScience 27(7):110201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang W, Gao G, Agarwal R (2023) Friend or foe? Teaming between artificial intelligence and workers with variation in experience. Management Sci. 70(9):5753–5775.Google Scholar
• Wismüller A, Stockmaster L (2020) A prospective randomized clinical trial for measuring radiology study reporting time on artificial intelligence-based detection of intracranial hemorrhage in emergent care head CT. Proc. Medical Imaging 2020: Biomedical Appl. Molecular Structural Funct. Imaging, vol. 11317 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, Bellingham, WA), 144–150.Google Scholar
• Wu S, Cai W, Jin S (2015) Motivation enhances the ability to detect truth from deception in audio-only messages. J. Investigative Psych. Offender Profiling 12(2):119–126.Crossref, Google Scholar