Using a Linguistic Analysis Tool to Detect Deception

Abstract

Detecting deception is important, yet accuracy rates remain low (e.g., DePaulo & Friedman, 1998). Pennebaker et al. (2003) suggest a linguistic analysis tool may be able to detect deception because people use a different linguistic style when telling the truth than when lying. For example, the anxiety experienced by liars may “leak” into their words. The cognitive resources devoted to the lie will be taken from the message. Newman et al. (2003) found support for these hypotheses using the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC). Dzindolet and Pierce (2004a) found the LIWC was useful in detecting deception among participants discussing music preferences. This study expands their work to include other topics. Results from the 2 (topic: movie or television) x 2 (topic importance: high or low) x 2 (communication type: lie or truth) design indicated that linguistic analysis tools may be useful in detecting deception across a variety of topics.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

DePaulo

B. M.

Friedman

H. S.

(1998). Nonverbal communication. In Gilbert

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.) Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 3–40). New York: Random House.

DePaulo

B. M.

Lindsay

J. J.

Malone

B. E.

Muhlenbruck

Charlton

Cooper

(2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Pierce

L. G.

(2004a). A computerized text analysis can detect deception. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Pierce

L. G.

(2004b). The Relationship between Word Use and Interactive Brainstorming Performance. Paper presented at the Society of Experimental Social Psychology Conference, Fort Worth, TX.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Stover

Pierce

L. G.

(2005). Predicting group decision-making with a computerized text analysis tool. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 29th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Ekman

(1992). Telling Lies. New York: Norton.

Newman

M. L.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Berry

D. S.

Richards

J. M.

(2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665–675.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Chew

C. H.

(1985). Behavioral inhibition and electrodermal activity during deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1427–1433.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Francis

M. L.

Booth

R. J.

(2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Pennebaker

J. W.

King

L. A.

(1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1296–1312.

11.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Mehl

M. R.

Niederhoffer

K. G.

(2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.

12.

Petrie

K. P.

Booth

R. J.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(1998). The immunological effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1264–72.

13.

Purcell

Batka

Dzindolet

M. T.

Rosa-Ramirez

Pierce

Fleek

(2002, April). Linguistic style and brainstorming performance. Poster session presented at Oklahoma Psychological Society, Edmond, Oklahoma.

14.

Zuckerman

DePaulo

B. M.

Rosenthal

(1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York: Academic Press.