How Large Language Models Weight Narrative Cues When Detecting Deception in Oral Accounts: A Multi-Model Comparison

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Meng-Chen He, Wei Ji, Jing-Xuan Ran, Jia-Xin Cui, Wen-Jing Yan, Jing Liang
{"title":"How Large Language Models Weight Narrative Cues When Detecting Deception in Oral Accounts: A Multi-Model Comparison","authors":"Meng-Chen He,&nbsp;Wei Ji,&nbsp;Jing-Xuan Ran,&nbsp;Jia-Xin Cui,&nbsp;Wen-Jing Yan,&nbsp;Jing Liang","doi":"10.1002/acp.70297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Lie detection research has increasingly turned to artificial intelligence, yet the application of large language models (LLMs) remains underexplored for transcribed oral narratives. We compared five LLMs (Gemini-3-flash, Gemini-3-pro, Deepseek-v4-flash, GPT-5.6-luna, and Grok-4) in classifying truthful and deceptive statements from interview transcripts of oral travel narratives collected from 95 Chinese-speaking participants. Guided by Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), Reality Monitoring (RM), and the Verifiability Approach (VA), theory-driven prompts instructed models to score five narrative cues before making binary veracity judgments. Gemini-3-flash achieved the highest accuracy (74.74%, AUC = 0.76) with 81.63% sensitivity and 67.39% specificity, and stable repeated-run performance. For this optimal model, unusual/superfluous details served as the sole significant predictor of objective veracity even after controlling for text length. LLMs can detect deception above chance but show large performance heterogeneity. Independent human coding, cross-cultural replications, and adversarial robustness testing are needed before real-world deployment.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48281,"journal":{"name":"Applied Cognitive Psychology","volume":"40 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.70297","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lie detection research has increasingly turned to artificial intelligence, yet the application of large language models (LLMs) remains underexplored for transcribed oral narratives. We compared five LLMs (Gemini-3-flash, Gemini-3-pro, Deepseek-v4-flash, GPT-5.6-luna, and Grok-4) in classifying truthful and deceptive statements from interview transcripts of oral travel narratives collected from 95 Chinese-speaking participants. Guided by Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), Reality Monitoring (RM), and the Verifiability Approach (VA), theory-driven prompts instructed models to score five narrative cues before making binary veracity judgments. Gemini-3-flash achieved the highest accuracy (74.74%, AUC = 0.76) with 81.63% sensitivity and 67.39% specificity, and stable repeated-run performance. For this optimal model, unusual/superfluous details served as the sole significant predictor of objective veracity even after controlling for text length. LLMs can detect deception above chance but show large performance heterogeneity. Independent human coding, cross-cultural replications, and adversarial robustness testing are needed before real-world deployment.

在口述中发现欺骗时,大语言模型如何权衡叙事线索:多模型比较
测谎研究越来越多地转向人工智能,但大型语言模型(llm)在转录口头叙事中的应用仍未得到充分探索。我们比较了5个法学硕士(Gemini-3-flash、Gemini-3-pro、Deepseek-v4-flash、GPT-5.6-luna和Grok-4)从95名汉语参与者的口头旅行叙事采访记录中对真实和虚假陈述的分类。在基于标准的内容分析(CBCA)、现实监测(RM)和可验证性方法(VA)的指导下,理论驱动提示指示模型在做出二元准确性判断之前对五个叙事线索进行评分。Gemini-3-flash检测精度最高(74.74%,AUC = 0.76),灵敏度81.63%,特异度67.39%,重复性好。对于这个最优模型,即使在控制了文本长度之后,不寻常/多余的细节也是客观准确性的唯一重要预测因子。llm可以检测出高于概率的欺骗行为,但表现出较大的性能异质性。在实际部署之前,需要独立的人类编码、跨文化复制和对抗性健壮性测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Applied Cognitive Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Applied Cognitive Psychology seeks to publish the best papers dealing with psychological analyses of memory, learning, thinking, problem solving, language, and consciousness as they occur in the real world. Applied Cognitive Psychology will publish papers on a wide variety of issues and from diverse theoretical perspectives. The journal focuses on studies of human performance and basic cognitive skills in everyday environments including, but not restricted to, studies of eyewitness memory, autobiographical memory, spatial cognition, skill training, expertise and skilled behaviour. Articles will normally combine realistic investigations of real world events with appropriate theoretical analyses and proper appraisal of practical implications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书