Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
On Lying and Being Lied To

On Lying and Being Lied To

Ratings: (0)|Views: 56|Likes:
Published by Ken Connor

More info:

Published by: Ken Connor on Jul 02, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
This article was downloaded by:[Hancock, Jeffrey T.]On:26 March 2008Access Details:[subscription number 791725022]Publisher:RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Discourse Processes
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653637
On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis ofDeception in Computer-Mediated Communication
Jeffrey T. Hancock
a
;Lauren E. Curry
a
;Saurabh Goorha
a
; Michael Woodworth
ba
Department of Communication, Cornell University,
b
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan, CanadaOnline Publication Date:01 January 2008To cite this Article:Hancock, Jeffrey T.,Curry, Lauren E.,Goorha, Saurabh andWoodworth, Michael (2008) 'On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis ofDeception in Computer-Mediated Communication', Discourse Processes, 45:1, 1 -23To link to this article: DOI:10.1080/01638530701739181URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530701739181PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLEFull terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThisarticlemaybeusedforresearch,teachingandprivatestudypurposes.Anysubstantialorsystematicreproduction,re-distribution,re-selling,loanorsub-licensing,systematicsupplyordistributioninanyformtoanyoneisexpresslyforbidden.Thepublisherdoesnotgiveanywarrantyexpressorimpliedormakeanyrepresentationthatthecontentswillbecompleteoraccurateoruptodate.Theaccuracyofanyinstructions,formulaeanddrugdosesshouldbeindependentlyverifiedwithprimarysources.Thepublishershallnotbeliableforanyloss,actions,claims,proceedings,demandorcostsordamageswhatsoeverorhowsoevercausedarisingdirectlyorindirectlyinconnectionwithorarising out of the use of this material.
 
   D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   B  y  :   [   H  a  n  c  o  c   k ,   J  e   f   f  r  e  y   T .   ]   A   t  :   2   3  :   4   3   2   6   M  a  r  c   h   2   0   0   8
 
On Lying and Being Lied To:A Linguistic Analysis of Deceptionin Computer-Mediated Communication
Jeffrey T. Hancock, Lauren E. Curry, and Saurabh Goorha
 Department of CommunicationCornell University
Michael Woodworth
 Department of PsychologyUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan, Canada
Thisstudyinvestigatedchangesinboththeliar’sandtheconversationalpartner’slin-guistic style across truthful and deceptive dyadic communication in a synchronoustext-based setting. An analysis of 242 transcripts revealed that liars produced morewords,moresense-basedwords(e.g.,seeing,touching),andusedfewerself-orientedbutmoreother-orientedpronounswhenlyingthanwhentellingthetruth.Inaddition,motivatedliarsavoidedcausaltermswhenlying,whereasunmotivatedliarstendedtoincrease their use of negations. Conversational partners also changed their behaviorduring deceptive conversations, despite being blind to the deception manipulation.Partners asked more questions with shorter sentences when they were being de-ceived, and matched the liar’s linguistic style along several dimensions. The linguis-tic patterns in both the liar and the partner’s language use were not related to decep-tion detection, suggesting that partners were unable to use this linguistic informationto improve their deception detection accuracy.
Modern communication technologies have advanced both the speed and quantityof information that is shared among humans and organizations. Although thesechangeshavecreatedanumberofadvantagesforsociety,includingfasteraccesstoinformationandinexpensivemodesofcommunicationatadistance,theyhavealso
 Discourse Processes
, 45:1–23, 2008Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0163–853X print/1532–6950 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01638530701739181Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey T. Hancock, Department of Communication and the Faculty of Computing and Information Science, 320 Kennedy Hall, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, NY 14853. E-mail: jeff.hancock@cornell.edu
 
   D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   B  y  :   [   H  a  n  c  o  c   k ,   J  e   f   f  r  e  y   T .   ]   A   t  :   2   3  :   4   3   2   6   M  a  r  c   h   2   0   0   8
creatednewopportunitiesfordeception(Hancock,2007).Deception,ingeneral,isnot an infrequent part of human communication. Indeed, it has been reported thatpeople tell an average of one to two lies a day (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer,& Epstein, 1996), and recent research suggests that these everyday lies also takeplace in mediated communication (Hancock, Thom-Santelli, & Ritchie , 2004).As Granhag and Strömwall (2004, p. 324) pointed out, the fact that lying oc-curs across different communication media has important implications for thestudy of deception (see also Carlson, George, Burgoon, Adkins, & White, 2004;Hancock, 2007). For example, how does deception affect language use intext-based interactions, such as e-mail and instant messaging; that is, can lin-guistic patterns differentiate between deceptive and truthful electronic communi-cation? If so, can these linguistic patterns be assessed in ways that might be use-ful in detecting some of the potentially dangerous types of deceptionincreasingly found in online chat rooms, such as the sexual predation of minors(Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2001)?In this study, we begin to address these questions by examining the linguisticprofiles of deceptive and truthful liars and their partners engaged in synchronous,text-basedcomputer-mediatedcommunication(CMC).Unlikepreviousdeceptionresearchthathasfocusedprimarilyontheliarsbehavior,inthisstudyweexaminethe linguistic behavior of both the liar and the target of the lie. We also manipulatethe
motivation
of liars to succeed in their deceptions in an effort to examine howmotivation affects the linguistic profile of digital deception.
AUTOMATED ANALYSIS OF LINGUISTIC CUESIN DECEPTION
Although not as well-studied as the non-verbal aspects of deception (Miller &Stiff, 1993), the language of deception has been examined with several differentapproaches(seeShuy,1988),includingStatementValidityAnalysis(seeRaskin&Esplin, 1991), Scientific Content Analysis (see Driscoll, 1994), and Reality Moni-toring (see Johnson & Raye, 1998). These approaches or techniques to analyzingdeceptive and truthful language are based on theoretical assumptions of how de-ceptionshouldbereflectedinlanguage.Forexample,RealityMonitoringassumesthat descriptions of real memories of an event differ from imagined or fabricatedmemories, such that descriptions of real memories will contain more perceptualandcontextualinformationthanfalsememories.Codersexaminetranscriptsofin-terviews and statements for evidence of these types of differences (e.g., Vrij, Ed-ward, Roberts, & Bull, 2000).More recently, automated linguistic techniques in which computer programsare used to analyze the linguistic properties of texts have been used to examine thelinguistic profiles of deceptive language (e.g., Bond & Lee, 2005; Newman,
2
HANCOCK, CURRY, GOORHA, WOODWORTH

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->