Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A personal model of trumpery: Deception detection in a real-world high-stakes setting

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1811.01938 v1 pith:4VSPZDPN submitted 2018-11-05 cs.CL cs.HC

classification cs.CLcs.HC
keywords peopletweetsdeceptiondifferencesfactuallyincorrectindividuallinguistic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Language use reveals information about who we are and how we feel1-3. One of the pioneers in text analysis, Walter Weintraub, manually counted which types of words people used in medical interviews and showed that the frequency of first-person singular pronouns (i.e., I, me, my) was a reliable indicator of depression, with depressed people using I more often than people who are not depressed4. Several studies have demonstrated that language use also differs between truthful and deceptive statements5-7, but not all differences are consistent across people and contexts, making prediction difficult8. Here we show how well linguistic deception detection performs at the individual level by developing a model tailored to a single individual: the current US president. Using tweets fact-checked by an independent third party (Washington Post), we found substantial linguistic differences between factually correct and incorrect tweets and developed a quantitative model based on these differences. Next, we predicted whether out-of-sample tweets were either factually correct or incorrect and achieved a 73% overall accuracy. Our results demonstrate the power of linguistic analysis in real-world deception research when applied at the individual level and provide evidence that factually incorrect tweets are not random mistakes of the sender.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools