High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Detecting Deception in an Apology
ian.trudel@gmail.comNovember, 30
th
2009 This is an essay on
Detecting Deception in an Apology
(DDinA) using statement analysis. The approach presentedin this essay aims to be accessible to the general public byfocusing on the basic elements of statement analysis andprovides the ability to be manually performed in areasonably short time with an acceptable
appreciation of the truthfulness and sincerity
in an apology.
Rationale
Numerous compelling reasons may motivate an individualor a group to know whether or not an apologetic person istruthful and sincere. For example, the need for closure orinterest in reconciliation may be the driving force to know.It may help a company to know if a troublesome employeeis truly sorry and will promptly remedy to the situation. Itmay be an influential factor to lessen a punishment in theCourt of Law. Personal and professional relationships alikewill benefit from determining truthfulness in an apologyregardless of the reasons.
Approach, Tools and Techniques
The approach used in
Detecting Deception in an Apology
(DDinA) is straightforward since it is based on fundamentalsof
Statement Analysis
[1]
and its application on theparticulars peculiar to apologies
[2]
. This essay discussesthe principal differences characterizing the statementanalysis of apologetic statements.DDinA is an effective approach to determine, within reason,the truthfulness in an apology. Determining the sincerity inan apology or an apologetic person is unfortunately provento be more challenging. DDinA nevertheless provides anacceptable appreciation of the sincerity behind an apology.
Apologetic Statements
An apologetic statement should answer to the questionslisted in this subsection. The answers, or lack thereof, playan important role in determining whether or not astatement is complete and accurate. Statement analysis isaccordingly performed on each and every part of anapology to apprehend deceptive words or wording.
•
What events are you apologizing for?(
Accountability
)
•
What are the consequences of your actions?(
Acknowledgement
)
•
Who is responsible for the consequences?(
Taking Responsibility
)
•
Do you regret your actions [and how so]?(
Expressing Regrets
)
•
Do you wish to be forgiven? (
Asking forForgiveness
, optional)
•
Do you promise that it won't happen again?(
Promise
, optional)
•
How will you to repair the situation?(
Restitution
, optional)
Statement Analysis
Statement analysis related articles are listed in thereferences section available below for those who are notfamiliar with it. These references should serve as a startingpoint, if you have no prior experience in statementanalysis, but are more than enough to assist you inanalyzing most apologies. Only few elements from thesearticles are reiterated in this essay.Statement analysis examines four components
[3]
:
•
Parts of Speech (pronouns,nouns, verbs)
•
Extraneous Information (seealso
[4]
)
•
Lack of Conviction (see also
[4]
)
•
Balance of the Statement
Text Bridges
Text bridges
[5]
are particularly effective in detectingdeception in descriptions of events. The nature of anapology is considerably different from, for example, anincident report and only a small part of it can be consideredas a description of events (e.g.
Accountability
). Thepresence of text bridges in other parts that do not describea flow of events may or may not be deceptive and it mightbe difficult to identify what and why information isconcealed.Previous correspondence may be helpful to establish abaseline, a normal context without pressure and stress, todetermine how and when an apologetic person use certaintext bridges and decide whether or not they are in factused to conceal information.
Extraneous Information
Any information that does not answer to the questions asdefined in subsection “
Apologetic Statements
” isconsidered extraneous
[4]
. A deceptive person might betempted to communicate a considerable amount of extraneous information in order to divert the attention fromthe important questions and thus reducing thecompleteness of the apologetic statement.Furthermore, a deceptive person may attempt to rationalizehis or her actions to diminish his or her responsibility in theproblematic situation, or even rationalize the actions of theperson he or she is apologizing to, for example, to obtainapologies from this person or to later obtain favours of anykind. It is a deceptive and manipulative practice. The pronoun “I” is denoted to be used by truthful personsin an incident report according to experienced investigatorsbecause it is an indicator of commitment to what has beenwritten or said. This is normally valid in every part of anapology but it should not undermine the fact that anapology is about the person one apologizes to. Anystatement shifting the focus back to the apologetic personin an attempt to rationalize his or her actions should beconsidered suspicious. The use of the pronoun "I" inextraneous information is likely to be deceptive.
Add a Comment