Can Factual Statements be Deceptive? The DeFaBel Corpus of Belief-based Deception
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
If a person firmly believes in a non-factual statement, such as "The Earth is flat", and argues in its favor, there is no inherent intention to deceive. As the argumentation stems from genuine belief, it may be unlikely to exhibit the linguistic properties associated with deception or lying. This interplay of factuality, personal belief, and intent to deceive remains an understudied area. Disentangling the influence of these variables in argumentation is crucial to gain a better understanding of the linguistic properties attributed to each of them. To study the relation between deception and factuality, based on belief, we present the DeFaBel corpus, a crowd-sourced resource of belief-based deception. To create this corpus, we devise a study in which participants are instructed to write arguments supporting statements like "eating watermelon seeds can cause indigestion", regardless of its factual accuracy or their personal beliefs about the statement. In addition to the generation task, we ask them to disclose their belief about the statement. The collected instances are labelled as deceptive if the arguments are in contradiction to the participants' personal beliefs. Each instance in the corpus is thus annotated (or implicitly labelled) with personal beliefs of the author, factuality of the statement, and the intended deceptiveness. The DeFaBel corpus contains 1031 texts in German, out of which 643 are deceptive and 388 are non-deceptive. It is the first publicly available corpus for studying deception in German. In our analysis, we find that people are more confident in the persuasiveness of their arguments when the statement is aligned with their belief, but surprisingly less confident when they are generating arguments in favor of facts. The DeFaBel corpus can be obtained from https://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/data/defabel
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Mar 2024.
Builds on
12 of 55 references.
References · 12
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2021A Survey on Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 376
- 2017"Liar, Liar Pants on Fire": A New Benchmark Dataset for Fake News Detectioncited by 361
- 2018Automated Fact Checking: Task formulations, methods and future directionscited by 96
- 2020A Survey on Computational Propaganda Detectioncited by 69
- 2023Scientific Fact-Checking: A Survey of Resources and Approachescited by 53
- 2019Exploring the Role of Prior Beliefs for Argument Persuasioncited by 30
- 2021Belief-based Generation of Argumentative Claimscited by 14
- 2019Adversarial Training for Satire Detection: Controlling for Confounding Variablescited by 13
- 2018The Mafiascum Dataset: A Large Text Corpus for Deception Detectioncited by 8
- 2017Online Deception Detection Refueled by Real World Data Collectioncited by 3
- 2023UNIDECOR: A Unified Deception Corpus for Cross-Corpus Deception Detectioncited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 2.
4 papers.
- 2024Fearful Falcons and Angry Llamas: Emotion Category Annotations of Arguments by Humans and LLMscited by 11
- 2025Do Emotions Really Affect Argument Convincingness? A Dynamic Approach with LLM-based Manipulation Checkscited by 6
- 2024How Entangled is Factuality and Deception in German?cited by 0
- 2025Donate or Create? Comparing Data Collection Strategies for Emotion-labeled Multimodal Social Media Postscited by 0
- 2025Donate or Create? Comparing Data Collection Strategies for Emotion-labeled Multimodal Social Media Posts30 May 2025
- 2025Do Emotions Really Affect Argument Convincingness? A Dynamic Approach with LLM-based Manipulation Checks24 Feb 2025
- 2024Fearful Falcons and Angry Llamas: Emotion Category Annotations of Arguments by Humans and LLMs20 Dec 2024
- 2024How Entangled is Factuality and Deception in German?30 Sep 2024