The Dynamic Nature of Deceptive Verbal Communication

Past research on verbal deception has found inconsistent patterns, possibly due to failure to consider the dynamic nature of interpersonal deception. The current investigation examined temporal changes and sequencing effects in truthful and deceptive responding on 23 linguistic measures. Interviewees responded to 12 questions during which they alternated between giving blocks of truthful and blocks of deceptive answers. Results showed significant variability in verbal behavior across the course of the interviewon virtually all measures. Deceptive responding differed from truthful responding depending on the truth-deception sequence and the phase of the interview. The truth-first order made it much easier for deceivers to approximate truthful discourse sooner. The existence of significant variability due to time and sequence has important implications for identifying reliable indicators of deception and for research paradigms used to investigate deceptive and truthful discourse.

[1]  Leif A. Strömwall,et al.  Repeated interrogations: verbal and non‐verbal cues to deception , 2002 .

[2]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech upon judgments of victims and villains , 1981 .

[3]  Bernard Rimé,et al.  Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior , 1991 .

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

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

[6]  James J. Bradac,et al.  A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles. , 1984 .

[7]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The Role of Conversational Involvement in Deceptive Interpersonal Interactions , 1999 .

[8]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns , 1995 .

[9]  James F. Roiger,et al.  Testing Interpersonal Deception Theory: The Language of Interpersonal Deception , 1996 .

[10]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Language dominance in interpersonal deception in computer-mediated communication , 2004, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  R. Kelly Aune,et al.  Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers , 1987 .

[12]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception VIII , 1994 .

[13]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  An exploratory study on promising cues in deception detection and application of decision tree , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[14]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages , 1996 .

[15]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Language attitudes and impression formation. , 1990 .

[16]  H. Giles,et al.  Handbook of language and social psychology , 1992 .

[17]  L. Anolli,et al.  Linguistic Styles in Deceptive Communication: Dubitative Ambiguity and Elliptic Eluding in Packaged Lies , 2003 .

[18]  D. Gilbert,et al.  On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. , 1988 .

[19]  Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behavior in children and adults , 2004 .

[20]  R. Bull,et al.  Detecting Deceit via Analysis of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior , 2000 .

[21]  J. Bowers,et al.  THREE LANGUAGE VARIABLES IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH: INTENSITY, IMMEDIACY, AND DIVERSITY , 1979 .

[22]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics , 1994 .

[23]  David B. Buller,et al.  Interpersonal deception. I : Deceivers' reactions to receivers' suspicions and probing , 1991 .

[24]  P A Granhag,et al.  Deception Detection: Interrogators' and Observers' Decoding of Consecutive Statements , 2001, The Journal of psychology.

[25]  Fred E. Inbau,et al.  Criminal Interrogation and Confessions , 1967 .

[26]  T. Farrow,et al.  A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: evidence from functional neuroimaging. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[27]  James J. Bradac,et al.  Two studies of the effects of linguistic diversity upon judgments of communicator attributes and message effectiveness , 1976 .

[28]  Hamish Cunningham,et al.  GATE-a General Architecture for Text Engineering , 1996, COLING.

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

[30]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Interpersonal Perception: A Social Relations Analysis , 1988 .

[31]  Steven R. Corman,et al.  Individual Differences and Changes in Nonverbal Behavior , 1994 .

[32]  Frank J. Bernieri,et al.  Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interactional synchrony. , 1991 .

[33]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Language Use in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Coordination Devices , 2001 .

[34]  Kalina Bontcheva,et al.  Using GATE as an Environment for Teaching NLP , 2002, ACL 2002.

[35]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Adaptation and Communicative Design Patterns of Interaction in Truthful and Deceptive Conversations , 2001 .

[36]  C. F. Bond,et al.  Fishy-looking liars: deception judgment from expectancy violation. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  C. Whissell,et al.  A Dictionary of Affect in Language: IV. Reliability, Validity, and Applications , 1986 .

[38]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  Insight into behavior displayed during deception , 1996 .

[39]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

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

[41]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  A Longitudinal Analysis of Language Behavior of Deception in E-mail , 2003, ISI.

[42]  I. Wilkinson,et al.  Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans , 2001, Neuroreport.

[43]  Cindy K. Chung,et al.  The Psychological Functions of Function Words , 2007 .

[44]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[45]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Lies in Conversation: An Examination of Deception Using Automated Linguistic Analysis , 2004 .