Lies in Conversation: An Examination of Deception Using Automated Linguistic Analysis - eScholarship
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Lies in Conversation: An Examination of Deception Using Automated Linguistic Analysis Jeffrey T. Hancock (jeff.hancock@cornell.edu) Department of Communication, Cornell University 320 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850 USA Lauren E. Curry (lec26@cornell.edu) Department of Communication, Cornell University 320 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850 USA Saurabh Goorha (sg278@cornell.edu) Department of Communication, Cornell University 320 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850 USA Michael T. Woodworth (mwoodwor@dal.ca) Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University Life Sciences Center, Halifax, NS, B3K 1L4, Canada suggests that liars tend to make less sense and tell less plausible stories (e.g., making discrepant and ambivalent statements), among other verbal characteristics (for review, see DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Mulenbruck, Charlton, & Cooper, 2003). The present study employs automated linguistic analysis, in which a computer program is used to analyze the linguistic properties of texts, to examine the verbal content of deceptive and truthful conversations. As Pennebaker, Mehl, and Niederhoffer (2003) note, words used in daily interactions reveal both psychological and social aspects of peoples’ worlds. Certain words and parts of speech can be markers of emotional, psychological, and cognitive states. Given that deceiving others likely involves changes in emotional or psychological states, linguistic cues detected using automated techniques may indicate lying in conversation. Abstract The present study investigated changes in both the sender’s and the receiver’s linguistic style across truthful and deceptive dyadic communication. A computer-based analysis of 242 transcripts revealed that senders used more words overall, increased references to others, and used more sense-based descriptions (e.g., seeing, touching) when lying as compared to telling the truth. Receivers naive to the deception manipulation produced more words and sense terms, and asked more questions with shorter sentences when they were being lied to than when they were being told the truth. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for linguistic style matching. Introduction Maxims such as “honesty is the best policy” and “let the truth be told” reinforce the notion that telling the truth is the best way to communicate. When telling everyday lies, then, deceivers must be careful to assume a position of sincerity in order to make their partners believe them and avoid being viewed in a negative light. In fact, this feat might not be very difficult to accomplish. Previous research suggests that it is quite difficult to catch a liar as deception detection rates in many experiments are not much better than chance (Vrij, In general, there are three methods for trying to detect deceit. The first method focuses on vocalic and physical nonverbal behaviors (e.g., movements, smiles, voice pitch, speech rate, stuttering, and eye gaze) (Vrij, 2000). The second method involves measuring physiological responses with various technologies, such as polygraph machines (Vrij, Edward, Roberts, & Bull, 2000). The third method is concerned with the content of what is said (e.g., verbal behavior, as well as a study of linguistic properties of liars’ texts). For example, previous research Linguistic Indicators of Deception A review of the relatively small literature concerned with automated linguistic analyses of deception indicates that, to date, at least four main types of linguistic cues have been associated with deception: 1) word counts 2) pronoun usage, 3) words pertaining to feelings and the senses, and 4) exclusive terms (Burgoon, Buller, Floyd, & Grandpre, 1996; Burgoon, Bliar, Qin, & Nunamaker, 2003; Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003; Pennebaker et al., Consider first differences in word counts across deceitful and truthful messages. Previous studies have found that senders offer fewer details when lying than when telling the truth (Burgoon et al., 2003; DePaulo et al., 2003; Vrij, 2000). Senders may offer fewer details because they are less familiar with what they are discussing, or because they are trying to avoid providing details that may be inconsistent
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».