What if Deception Cannot be Detected? A Cross-Linguistic Study on the Limits of Deception Detection from Text

TL;DR

This study questions the reliability of linguistic cues for deception detection, showing they are inconsistent and insignificant across diverse datasets, and highlights the need for rethinking deception modeling in NLP.

Contribution

Introduces a belief-based deception framework and constructs multilingual corpora to systematically evaluate deception cues, revealing their limited predictive power across datasets.

Findings

Linguistic cues show negligible correlation with deception labels.

Predictive cues are inconsistent across different datasets.

Pretrained models perform near chance on new corpora.

Abstract

Can deception be detected solely from written text? Cues of deceptive communication are inherently subtle, even more so in text-only communication. Yet, prior studies have reported considerable success in automatic deception detection. We hypothesize that such findings are largely driven by artifacts introduced during data collection and do not generalize beyond specific datasets. We revisit this assumption by introducing a belief-based deception framework, which defines deception as a misalignment between an author's claims and true beliefs, irrespective of factual accuracy, allowing deception cues to be studied in isolation. Based on this framework, we construct three corpora, collectively referred to as DeFaBel, including a German-language corpus of deceptive and non-deceptive arguments and a multilingual version in German and English, each collected under varying conditions to account for belief change and enable cross-linguistic analysis. Using these corpora, we evaluate commonly reported linguistic cues of deception. Across all three DeFaBel variants, these cues show negligible, statistically insignificant correlations with deception labels, contrary to prior work that treats such cues as reliable indicators. We further benchmark against other English deception datasets following similar data collection protocols. While some show statistically significant correlations, effect sizes remain low and, critically, the set of predictive cues is inconsistent across datasets. We also evaluate deception detection using feature-based models, pretrained language models, and instruction-tuned large language models. While some models perform well on established deception datasets, they consistently perform near chance on DeFaBel. Our findings challenge the assumption that deception can be reliably inferred from linguistic cues and call for rethinking how deception is studied and modeled in NLP.