IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/iastwp/128164.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lie-detection algorithms attract few users but vastly increase accusation rates

Author

Listed:
  • von Schenk, Alicia
  • Klockmann, Victor
  • Bonnefon, Jean-François
  • Rahwan, Iyad
  • Köbis, Nils

Abstract

People are not very good at detecting lies, which may explain why they refrain from accusing others of lying, given the social costs attached to false accusations — both for the accuser and the accused. Here we consider how this social balance might be disrupted by the availability of lie-detection algorithms powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Will people elect to use lie-detection AI that outperforms humans, and if so, will they show less restraint in their accusations? To find out, we built a machine learning classifier whose accuracy (66.86%) was significantly better than human accuracy (46.47%) lie-detection task. We conducted an incentivized lie-detection experiment (N = 2040) in which we measured participants’ propensity to use the algorithm, as well as the impact of that use on accusation rates and accuracy. Our results reveal that (a) requesting predictions from the lie-detection AI and especially (b) receiving AI predictions that accuse others of lying increase accusation rates. Due to the low uptake of the algorithm (31.76% requests), we do not see an improvement in accuracy when the AI prediction becomes available for purchase.

Suggested Citation

  • von Schenk, Alicia & Klockmann, Victor & Bonnefon, Jean-François & Rahwan, Iyad & Köbis, Nils, 2023. "Lie-detection algorithms attract few users but vastly increase accusation rates," IAST Working Papers 23-155, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    • Handle: RePEc:tse:iastwp:128164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://iast.fr/pub/128164
    File Function: null
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.iast.fr/sites/default/files/IAST/wp/wp_iast_155.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    2. Nils Köbis & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2021. "Bad machines corrupt good morals," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 679-685, June.
    3. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    4. Uyanga Turmunkh & Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder, 2019. "Malleable Lies: Communication and Cooperation in a High Stakes TV Game Show," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4795-4812, October.
    5. Chloe Tergiman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "The Way People Lie in Markets: Detectable vs. Deniable Lies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3340-3357, June.
    6. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    7. Bruno Verschuere & Chu-Chien Lin & Sara Huismann & Bennett Kleinberg & Marleen Willemse & Emily Chong Jia Mei & Thierry Goor & Leonie H. S. Löwy & Obed Kwame Appiah & Ewout Meijer, 2023. "The use-the-best heuristic facilitates deception detection," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(5), pages 718-728, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alicia von Schenk & Victor Klockmann & Jean-Franc{c}ois Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan & Nils Kobis, 2022. "Lie detection algorithms attract few users but vastly increase accusation rates," Papers 2212.04277, arXiv.org.
    2. Despoina Alempaki & Valeria Burdea & Daniel Read, 2021. "Deceptive Communication: Direct Lies vs. Ignorance, Partial-Truth and Silence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9286, CESifo.
    3. Sun, Keh-Kuan & Papadokonstantaki, Stella, 2023. "Lying aversion and vague communication: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    5. Adam Zylbersztejn & Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2021. "Predicting trustworthiness across cultures: An experiment," Post-Print hal-03432600, HAL.
    6. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Uyanga Turmunkh & Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder, 2019. "Malleable Lies: Communication and Cooperation in a High Stakes TV Game Show," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4795-4812, October.
    8. Grosch, Kerstin & Rau, Holger A., 2017. "Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 258-267.
    9. Lang, Matthias & Schudy, Simeon, 2023. "(Dis)honesty and the value of transparency for campaign promises," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    10. Donja Darai & Silvia Gr�tz, 2010. "Determinants of Successful Cooperation in a Face-to-Face Social Dilemma," SOI - Working Papers 1006, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Nov 2010.
    11. Chugunova, Marina & Sele, Daniela, 2022. "We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Chloe Tergiman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "The Way People Lie in Markets," Working Papers halshs-02292040, HAL.
    13. Kene Boun My & Julien Jacob & Mathieu Lefebvre, 2024. "AI devices and liability," Working Papers of BETA 2024-24, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    14. Chloe Tergiman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "The Way People Lie in Markets: Detectable vs. Deniable Lies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3340-3357, June.
    15. Bahel, Eric & Ball, Sheryl & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2022. "Communication and cooperation in Prisoner's Dilemma games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 126-137.
    16. Simin He & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2017. "The Sources of the Communication Gap," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2832-2846, September.
    17. Gabriele Camera & Rod Garratt & Cyril Monnet, 2024. "Truth by Consensus: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," Working Papers 24-10, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    18. Brams, Steven J. & Mor, Ben D., 2019. "How Lies Induced Cooperation in "Golden Balls:" A Game-Theoretic Analysis," MPRA Paper 97604, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Buser, Thomas & van den Assem, Martijn J. & van Dolder, Dennie, 2023. "Gender and willingness to compete for high stakes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 350-370.
    20. Kleinknecht, Janina, 2019. "A man of his word? An experiment on gender differences in promise keeping," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 251-268.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tse:iastwp:128164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iasttfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.