Automated Linguistic Analysis of Deceptive and Truthful Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication

The present study investigates changes in both the sender's and the target's linguistic style across truthful and deceptive dyadic communication in a synchronous text-based setting. A computer-based analysis of 242 transcripts revealed that senders produced more words overall, decreased their use of self-oriented pronouns but increased other-oriented pronouns, and used more sense-based descriptions (e.g., seeing, touching) when lying than when telling the truth. In addition, motivated senders avoided causal terms during deception, while unmotivated senders relied more heavily on simple negations. Receivers used more words when being deceived, but they also asked more questions and used shorter sentences when being lied to than when being told the truth, especially when the sender was unmotivated. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for linguistic style matching and interpersonal deception theory.

[1]  Therani Madhusudan,et al.  On a text-processing approach to facilitating autonomous deception detection , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[2]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  Testing the Interactivity Model: Communication Processes, Partner Assessments, and the Quality of Collaborative Work , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic Style Matching in Social Interaction , 2002 .

[4]  James A. Forrest,et al.  Detecting Deception and Judge’s Involvement: Lower Task Involvement Leads to Better Lie Detection , 2000 .

[5]  James W. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2007) , 2007 .

[6]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Deception and design: the impact of communication technology on lying behavior , 2004, CHI.

[7]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Cues to deception. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Lying in everyday life. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Does Participation Affect Deception Success? A Test of the Interactivity Principle , 2001 .

[10]  J. Nunamaker,et al.  Automating Linguistics-Based Cues for Detecting Deception in Text-Based Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communications , 2004 .

[11]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction , 2000 .

[12]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Psychological aspects of natural language. use: our words, our selves. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[13]  Judee Burgoon,et al.  Toward Computer-Aided Support for the Detection of Deception , 2004 .

[14]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Deceptive Realities , 1996 .

[15]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[16]  M. Knapp,et al.  Telling It Like It Isn't: A Review of Theory and Research on Deceptive Communications. , 1979 .

[17]  B. Depaulo,et al.  The Motivational Impairment Effect in the Communication of Deception , 1989 .

[18]  A. Vrij.  Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice , 2000 .

[19]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Detecting Deception through Linguistic Analysis , 2003, ISI.