The Dynamic Nature of Deceptive Verbal Communication

Burgoon, Judee K.; Qin, Tiantian

doi:10.1177/0261927x05284482

Cited by 79 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In interactive deception, oral deception cues show substantial variation across time and sequence of the response. Burgoon & Qin (2006) report that, in an interview context, deceptive profiles in the first half are very different from the second half. Differences in cues are also reported by Zhou, Burgoon & Twitchell (2003) in text-based email deception, with cues varying over the time of the deception, and no single cue predicting deception at all stages of the exchange.…”

Section: Narrative Progression and Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Analysing Deception in Written Witness Statements

Picornell

2013

LESLI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Written witness statements are a unique source for the study of high-stakes textual deception. To date, however, there is no distinction in the way that they and other forms of verbal deception have been analysed, with written statements treated as extensions of transcribed versions of oral reports. Given the highly context-dependent nature of cues, it makes sense to take the characteristics of the medium into account when analysing for deceptive language. This study examines the characteristic features of witness narratives and proposes a new approach to search for deception cues. Narratives are treated as a progression of episodes over time, and deception as a progression of acts over time. This allows for the profiling of linguistic bundles in sequence, revealing the statements' internal gradient, and deceivers' choice of deceptive linguistic strategy. Study results suggest that, at least in the context of written witness statements, the weighting of individual features as deception cues is not static but depends on their interaction with other cues, and that detecting deceivers' use of linguistic strategy is an effective vehicle for identifying deception.Keywords: detecting deception; witness statements; narratives; linguistic strategy; text analysis. Analysing Deception in Written Witness StatementsTo date, the information we have regarding behavioural cues to deception has been largely obtained from laboratory-based experiments dealing with low-consequence lies and psychological perspectives as to how liars should behave when lying. Their success is difficult to quantify as no one has yet identified a single cue, or set of cues, that is consistently identified with deception. DePaulo et al. (2003) suggest that behavioural cues to deception are normally faint unless liars are highly motivated to lie. They are thought to be more motivated to succeed with their deception when the consequences of being caught out are serious; being burdened by guilt at their transgression, or worry about implications to their reputation, or fear of imprisonment should the truth be revealed, results in more obvious behavioural cues which betray deceptive intentions. Such motivation is rarely found in the

show abstract

Section: Narrative Progression and Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Analysing Deception in Written Witness Statements

Picornell

2013

LESLI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experts may hesitate to label a false confession as deceptive due to the lack of outright intent or motivation to profit by deception. Moreover, the deception in an exculpatory statement may differ from deception in a false confession, as suggested by research indicating that advance preparation of a lie may result in a "larger quantity of words", while lying on the spot without advance preparation may result in less words begin said in comparison to a truthful statement (Burgoon & Qin, 2006).…”

Section: Distinguishing Between True and False Statementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying Deception Detection to True and False Confessions: A Novel Approach to Conducting Experiments in Legal Psychology

Preston¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…L. Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003;Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). Although deceivers have been postulated to use more affectively negative language than truth tellers, some results have shown them to use more affective language-both positive and negative-than truth tellers but only under certain circumstances (J. K. Burgoon, Hamel, & Qin, 2012; Judee K. Burgoon & Qin, 2006).…”

Section: Affectmentioning

confidence: 99%