A test of concurrent validity for linguistic indices of deception

Todd-Mancillas, William R.; Kibler, Robert J.

doi:10.1080/10570317909373959

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers have periodically observed deception-related changes in senders' language (DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985; Knapp, Hart, & Dennis, 1974;Kuiken, 1981;Todd-Mancillas & Kibler, 1979;Zuckerman & Driver, 1985). Moreover, access to verbal content of messages can increase deception detection accuracy (DePaulo et al, 1985;De-Paulo, Zuckerman, & Rosenthal, 1980;Hocking, Bauchner, Kaminski, & Miller, 1979; Littlepage & Pineault, 1981, which implies that language is a key component of deceptive behavior.…”

Section: Strategic and Nonstrategic Linguistic Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Interpersonal Deception Theory: The Language of Interpersonal Deception

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pages: 268-289An analysis of verbal behavior was undertaken to test principles of interpersonal deception theory (IDT). I t was predicted that language choice in deceptive messages would reflect strategic attempts to manage information through nonimmediate language. This linguistic profile, though, was expected to be altered in response to preinteractional factors -relational and behavioral familiarity-and interactional factors -form of deception and receiver suspicion. Results from two investigations are reported: a secondary analysis on interactions in an earlier study (Burgoon, Buller, Dillman, & Walther, 1995) and analysis of a primary experiment employing a 2 (relationship) x 2 (receiver expertise) x 2 (receiver suspicion) x 2 (truth/deception) within-subjects factorial design. As expected, senders displayed greater verbal nonimmediacy when deceiving. Expertise had a greater effect on linguistic behavior than a prior relationship with the receiver, with senders using more verbal nonimmediacy with novice receivers. Senders were more verbally nonimmediate when equivocating. Suspicion produced a mixed pattern of linguistic cues. The possibility that changes produced by preinteraction and interactional factors were strategic attempts to bolster credibility is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Strategic and Nonstrategic Linguistic Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Interpersonal Deception Theory: The Language of Interpersonal Deception

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this way, one produces a concise and brief utterance, which is often incomplete and typically assertive. Sentences are often short, without a subject and with a tacit predicate, with a lesser number of words, more frequent and longer pauses, as well as longer latency times for answers (Miller & Stiff, 1993;Stiff, Corman, Krizek, & Snider, 1994;Stiff & Miller, 1986;Todd-Manchillas & Kibler, 1979). In this situation the interlocutor may be incited to ask more explanatory questions (Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Linguistic Styles in Deceptive Communication: Dubitative Ambiguity and Elliptic Eluding in Packaged Lies

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper was aimed at addressing the topic of communicative styles of deception. University students were asked to describe a picture with varying truth/lie conditions. In accordance with their perception or being deliberately against it, the participant could: tell the truth (T); lie to an acquiescent recipient (L1); or lie to a suspicious recipient (L2). The goal was to investigate whether or not different linguistic styles could be correlated to the cognitive complexity of the task as regards the truth bias or lie bias of the recipient. Specifically, two sets of linguistic aspects -micro and macro structural -were analyzed. In the former, indices were considered as words (arguments number, repetitions and interruptions, fluency and fluency disorder indices), predicates (number, nominal/predicative construction and personal/impersonal structure), pronouns and adverbial forms. In the latter, the structural variations of the standard phrase, utterances' complexity, spatial organization of utterances and speech organization were analyzed. Results showed that participants used speech to shield from reality and chose different strategies; in the L1 condition, participants resorted to ambiguity and prolixity ("cuttlefish effect"); on the contrary, in the L2 condition they used concise assertiveness and elliptic eluding strategies ("chameleon effect").

show abstract

“…In lie detection, that is, the distinction between truth (accurate) and lies (inaccurate), extensive research has been conducted to find if any vocal characteristics can differentiate truth-tellers from liars. Studies have looked at vocal characteristics such as; talking time (Mehrabian, 1971;Knapp et al, 1974;Todd-Mancillas and Kibler, 1979), speech rate (Anolli and Ciceri, 1997;DePaulo and DePaulo, 1989;Feeley and DeTurck, 1998), vocal immediacy (Kraut and Poe, 1980), vocal uncertainty (Kraut and Poe, 1980;Stiff and Miller, 1986), silent pauses (Anolli and Ciceri, 1997;Stiff and Miller, 1986), vocal pleasantness (Scherer et al, 1985;Zuckerman et al, 1979;Rockwell et al, 1997), vocal stress (O'Hair, Cody, 1987O'Hair et al, 1990) and pitch (Villar et al, 2013;Streeter et al, 1977;Zuckerman et al, 1979;Rockwell et al, 1997). Although these individual studies generally find that the examined vocal characteristic in the respective study does predict accuracy, a meta-analysis of the field has revealed only small effects overall, which is a general issue in lie-detection research (DePaulo et al, 2003; see also Luke, 2019).…”

Section: Vocal Characteristics In Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%