{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010763209393346379, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.104166666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Language of Detecting Deceit

Techniques used to convince potential deceivers to tell the truth or to draw out information and cues to deception have long been part of the conventional wisdom of attorneys, police officers, investigative reporters, and other professionals who work with potential deceivers. A comprehensive search of this pragmatic literature yields myriad message strategies that these practitioners believe to be effective in obtaining accurate information and detecting deception. These diverse strategies were placed into a typology categorized by the ecumenical motivations facilitating truth-telling, increased information exchange, and cues to deceptive communication. Sample message tactics for implementing these overarching strategies are incorporated into this classification. This typology provides an organizational scheme for the diverse techniques drawn from pragmatic literature and can serve as a template or heuristic model for examining deception detection in interpersonal settings.