Don't Lie to Me: The Impact of Deception on Vocalic and Linguistic Synchrony

Most efforts at improving deception detection involve either the examination of a suspect's behavioral and physiological cues or are aimed at improving the ability of an interviewer to distinguish between truth and deception. The research presented here employs a dyadic approach to deception detection. This is a relatively novel method which utilizes the complex interplay and mutual influence between the deceiver and the receiver by examining the relationship between interactional synchrony and deception. This field experiment uses criminal interviews of both guilty (deceptive) and innocent (truthful) suspects to explore the impact of deception on different measures of vocalic and linguistic synchrony. Preliminary results indicate that deceivers may strategically synchronize to the interviewer in an attempt to allay suspicion.

[1]  Fei Yang,et al.  Is Interactional Dissynchrony a Clue to Deception? Insights From Automated Analysis of Nonverbal Visual Cues , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics.

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

[3]  Randall G. Rogan.  Linguistic Style Matching in Crisis Negotiations: A Comparative Analysis of Suicidal and Surrender Outcomes , 2011 .

[4]  Richard A Leo,et al.  Police Interviewing and Interrogation: A Self-Report Survey of Police Practices and Beliefs , 2007, Law and human behavior.

[5]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods , 2010 .

[6]  Howard Giles,et al.  Communication Accommodation Theory: “When in Rome …” or Not! , 2008 .

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

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

[9]  L. Tickle-Degnen,et al.  The Nature of Rapport and Its Nonverbal Correlates , 1990 .

[10]  R. Levenson,et al.  Physiological aspects of emotional knowledge and rapport. , 1997 .

[11]  Matthew L. Jensen,et al.  Deceptive Language by Innocent and Guilty Criminal Suspects , 2011 .

[12]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[13]  M. LaFrance.  Nonverbal synchrony and rapport: Analysis by the cross-lag panel technique. , 1979 .

[14]  A. Vrij.  Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities , 2008 .

[15]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  Jessica Gasiorek,et al.  Effects of Inferred Motive on Evaluations of Nonaccommodative Communication. , 2012 .

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

[18]  Marko Dragojevic,et al.  Communication Accommodation Theory , 2015 .

[19]  J. Cappella.  The Biological Origins of Automated Patterns of Human Interaction , 1991 .

[20]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  To Catch a Liar: Challenges for Research in Lie Detection Training , 2003 .

[21]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Edinburgh Research Explorer A cognitive architecture for the coordination of utterances , 2022 .

[22]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Accuracy of Deception Judgments , 2006, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[23]  A. Vrij,et al.  Cues to Deception and Ability to Detect Lies as a Function of Police Interview Styles , 2007, Law and human behavior.