Publications

There is currently very limited research into how experts analyze and assess potentially fraudulent content in their expertise areas, and most research within the disinformation space involves very limited text samples (e.g., news headlines). The overarching goal of the present study was to explore how an individual’s psychological profile and the linguistic features in text might influence an expert’s ability to discern disinformation/fraudulent content in academic journal articles. At a high level, the current design tasked experts with reading journal articles from their area of expertise and indicating if they thought an article was deceptive or not. Half the articles they read were journal papers that had been retracted due to academic fraud. Demographic and psychological inventory data collected on the participants was combined with performance data to generate insights about individual expert susceptibility to deception. Our data show that our population of experts were unable to reliably detect deception in formal technical writing. Several psychological dimensions such as comfort with uncertainty and intellectual humility may provide some protection against deception. This work informs our understanding of expert susceptibility to potentially fraudulent content within official, technical information and can be used to inform future mitigative efforts and provide a building block for future disinformation work.

Both human subject experiments and computational, modeling and simulations have been used to study detection of deception. This work aims to combine these two methods by integrating empirically-derived information (from human subject experiments) into agent-based models to generate novel insights into the complex problems of detection of disinformation content. Computational experiments are used to simulate across multiple scenarios for evaluation and decision-making regarding the validity of potentially deceptive scientific documents. Factors influencing the human agent behaviors in the model were identified through a human subject experiment that was conducted to evaluate and characterize decision making related to disinformation discernment. Correlation and regression analyses were used to translate insights from the human subjects experiment to inform the parameterization of agent features and scenario development. Three scenarios were evaluated with the agent-based models to help evaluate the replicability of the simulations (validation analysis) and assess the influence of human agent and document features (sensitivity analyses). A replication of the human participant experiment demonstrated that the agent-based simulations compare favorably to empirical findings. The agent-based modeling was then used to conduct sensitivity analysis on the accuracy of deception detection as a function of document proportions and human agent features. Results indicate that precision values are adversely impacted when the proportion of deceptive documents is lower in the overall sample, whereas recall values are more sensitive to changes in human agent features. These findings indicate important nuances in accuracy evaluations that should be further considered (including consideration of potential alternate metrics) in future agent-based models of disinformation. Additional areas for future exploration include extension of simulations to consider other ways to align the agent-based model design with psychological theory and inclusion of agent-agent interactions, especially as it pertains to sharing of scientific information within an organizational context.