Meta-analytic evidence suggests that verbal patterns of emotion betray deceit, but it is presently unclear whether the location of maximum emotion in lies and truths matters to reveal deception. We contribute to the deception literature by offering analyses at the sentence level to locate where emotion is most pronounced in deceptive versus truthful texts. Using two public data sets—news articles (Study 1) and hotel reviews (Study 2)—we found that maximum emotion occurs toward the beginning of deceptive texts while maximum emotion appears later for truthful texts. In addition to demonstrating the effect across diverse settings, we used two different measurements for emotion and separated the results by valence, replicating the maximum emotion effect each time. The predictive nature of maximum affect ranged from 54% to 56% across data sets, a rate consistent with most deception studies using 50-50 lie–truth base rates. Implications for future research and deception theory are discussed.
AhmedH.TraoreI.SaadS. (2017). Detection of online fake news using N-gram analysis and machine learning techniques. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10618 LNCS, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69155-8_9
2.
AhmedH.TraoreI.SaadS. (2018). Detecting opinion spams and fake news using text classification. Security and Privacy, 1(1), e9. https://doi.org/10.1002/spy2.9
3.
AliM.LevineT. R. (2008). The language of truthful and deceptive denials and confessions. Communication Reports, 21(2), 82–91.
4.
AmadoB. G.ArceR.FariñaF. (2015, January1). Undeutsch hypothesis and criteria based content analysis: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
5.
BarrettL. F.AdolphsR.MarsellaS.MartinezA. M.PollakS. D. (2019). Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(1), 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619832930
BiberD.ConnorU.UptonT. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
8.
BogaardG.MeijerE. H.VrijA. (2014). Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1409
9.
BogaardG.MeijerE. H.VrijA.MerckelbachH. (2016). Scientific content analysis (SCAN) cannot distinguish between truthful and fabricated accounts of a negative event. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00243
10.
BondC. F.DePauloB. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234.
11.
BondG. D.LeeA. Y. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 313–329.
12.
BoydR. L.PennebakerJ. W. (2015). A way with words: Using language for psychological science in the modern era. In DimofteC.HaugtvedtC.YalchR. (Eds.), Consumer psychology in a social media world (pp. 222–236). Routledge.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. B.WhiteC. H.AfifiW.BusligA. L. S. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006003
BüschkenJ.AllenbyG. M. (2016, November1). Sentence-based text analysis for customer reviews. Marketing Science, 35, 953–975. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.0993
17.
DeebH.VrijA.LealS.VeriginB. L.KleinmanS. M. (2020). When and how are lies told? And the role of culture and intentions in intelligence-gathering interviews. Legal and Criminological Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12171
GerlachP.TeodorescuK.HertwigR. (2019). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000174
22.
HalevyR.ShalviS.VerschuereB. (2014). Being honest about dishonesty: Correlating self-reports and actual lying. Human Communication Research, 40(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12019
23.
HancockJ. T.CurryL. E.GoorhaS.WoodworthM. (2007). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 1–23.
24.
HartwigM.BondC. F. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3052
25.
HauchV.Blandón-GitlinI.MasipJ.SporerS. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 307–342. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/1088868314556539
26.
HeilmanK. M. (1997). The neurobiology of emotional experience. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 9, 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.9.3.439
27.
HumphreysA.WangR. J. H. (2018). Automated text analysis for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1274–1306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx104
KahnemanD.FredricksonB. L.SchreiberC. A.RedelmeierD. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x
KoühnkenG.StellerM. (1988). The evaluation of the credibility of child witness statements in German procedural system. In DaviesG.DrinkwaterJ. (Eds.), The child witness: Do the courts abuse children? (pp. 37–45). British Psychological Society.
32.
LarrimoreL.JiangL.LarrimoreJ.MarkowitzD. M.GorskiS. (2011). Peer to peer lending: The relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.536844
33.
LealS.VrijA.NahariG.MannS. (2016). Please be honest and provide evidence: Deterrents of deception in an online insurance fraud context. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3252
34.
LevineT. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14535916
35.
LevineT. R. (2020). Duped: Truth-default theory and the social science of lying and deception. University of Alabama Press.
36.
LudwigS.de RuyterK.MahrD.WetzelsM.BrüggenE.de RuyckT. (2014). Take their word for it: The symbolic role of linguistic style matches in user communities. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1201–1218. https://doi.org/10.2307/26627968
37.
LukeT. J. (2019). Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 646–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619838258
38.
MarkowitzD. M. (2019). Putting your best pet forward: Language patterns of persuasion in online pet advertisements. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(3), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12647
39.
MarkowitzD. M.GriffinD. J. (2020). When context matters: How false, truthful, and genre-related communication styles are revealed in language. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1652751
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T. (2016). Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(4), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15614605
42.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T. (2018). Deception in mobile dating conversations. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 547–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy019
43.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T. (2019). Deception and language: The contextual organization of language and deception (COLD) framework. In Docan-MorganT. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 193–212). Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
MasipJ.SporerS. L.GarridoE.HerreroC. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001726356
45.
McCornackS. A.MorrisonK.PaikJ. E.WisnerA. M.ZhuX. (2014). Information manipulation theory 2: A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 348–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14534656
46.
NahariG.VrijA.FisherR. P. (2012). Does the truth come out in the writing? Scan as a lie detection tool. Law and Human Behavior, 36(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093965
47.
NewmanM. L.PennebakerJ. W.BerryD. S.RichardsJ. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010
48.
OttM.ChoiY.CardieC.HancockJ. T. (2011). Finding deceptive online spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 309–319). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
49.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.BoydR. L.FrancisM. E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word count: LIWC2015. Pennebaker Conglomerates.
50.
PennebakerJ. W.ChungC. K.FrazeeJ.LavergneG. M.BeaverD. I. (2014). When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLOS ONE, 9(12), e115844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115844
RedelmeierD. A.KahnemanD. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain, 66(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(96)02994-6
SerotaK. B.LevineT. R. (2014). A few prolific liars: Variation in the prevalence of lying. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14528804
55.
SerotaK. B.LevineT. R.BosterF. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.x
56.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676
57.
TomaC.HancockJ. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 78–97.
van LaerT.EscalasJ. E.LudwigS.van den HendeE. A. (2019). What happens in Vegas stays on Tripadvisor? A theory and technique to understand narrativity in consumer reviews. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(2), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy067
60.
VrijA. (2005, March). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3
61.
VrijA. (2018). Verbal lie detection tools from an applied perspective. In RosenfeldJ. P. (Ed.), Detecting concealed information and deception: Recent developments (pp. 297–321). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812729-2.00013-6
62.
VrijA. (2019). Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3457
63.
WaiddW. M.OrneM. T. (1981). Cognitive, social, and personality processes in the physiological detection of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14(C), 61–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60370-6
64.
ZuckermanM.DePauloB. M.RosenthalR. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
