Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:59:59.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Um, I can tell you're lying”: Linguistic markers of deception versus truth-telling in speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2010

JOANNE ARCIULI ,
DAVID MALLARD  and
GINA VILLAR
JOANNE ARCIULI*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
DAVID MALLARD
Affiliation:
Charles Sturt University
GINA VILLAR
Affiliation:
Charles Sturt University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Joanne Arciuli, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, P.O. Box 170, Lidcombe NSW 1825, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lying is a deliberate attempt to transmit messages that mislead others. Analysis of language behaviors holds great promise as an objective method of detecting deception. The current study reports on the frequency of use and acoustic nature of “um” and “like” during laboratory-elicited lying versus truth-telling. Results obtained using a within-participants false opinion paradigm showed that instances of “um” occur less frequently and are of shorter duration during lying compared to truth-telling. There were no significant differences in relation to “like.” These findings contribute to our understanding of the linguistic markers of deception behavior. They also assist in our understanding of the role of “um” in communication more generally. Our results suggest that “um” may not be accurately conceptualized as a filled pause/hesitation or speech disfluency/error whose increased usage coincides with increased cognitive load or increased arousal during lying. It may instead carry a lexical status similar to interjections and form an important part of authentic, effortless communication, which is somewhat lacking during lying.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 397 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akehurst, L., Kohnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461–471.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benus, S., Enos, F., Hirschberg, J., & Shriberg, E. (2006). Pauses in deceptive speech. Paper presented at the Third Speech Prosody Conference, Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
Bok, S. (1978). Lying. Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Bond, C., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F. Jr., & Uysal, A. (2007). On lie detection “wizards.” Law and Human Behavior, 31, 109–115.Google Scholar
Bond, G., & Lee, A. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313–329.Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S., Bloom, J., Schober, M., & Brennan, S. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123–147.Google Scholar
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J., & Qin, T. (2006). The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 76–96.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., & Floyd, K. (2000). Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 243–267.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Fox Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.Google Scholar
deVilliers, J., & deVilliers, P. (1978). Language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Drager, K. (2006). Social categories, grammatical categories, and the likelihood of “like” monophthongisation. In Warren, P. & Watson, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology. Sydney: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. (2006). Placing like in telling stories. Discourse Studies, 8, 723–743.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. (2007). Folk notions of um and uh, you know, and like. Text & Talk, 27, 297–314.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2001). Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29, 320–326.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Interpreting pauses and ums at turn exchanges. Discourse Processes, 34, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 486–495.Google Scholar
Ganis, G., Kosslyn, S., Stose, S., Thompson, W., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2003). Neural correlates of different types of deception: An fMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 830–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosman, L., & Wright, J. (1987). The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated courtroom context. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I'm innocent”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499–516.Google Scholar
Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 19–44.Google Scholar
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, C., & Kassin, S. (2002). “He's guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meservy, T. O., Jensen, M. L., Kruse, J., Burgoon, J. K., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2005). Automated extraction of deceptive behavioural cues from video. In Kantor, P. (Ed.), Intelligence and security informatics (pp. 198–208). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665–675.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, M. (2008). Home runs and humbugs: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008). Psychological Bulletin, 134, 493–497.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In Granhag, P. A. & Stromwell, L. (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 269–286). London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, J., Francis, M., & Booth, R. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rassin, E., & Van Der Heijden, . (2005). Appearing credible? Swearing helps! Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, L., & Torres, M. (2006). Spontaneous speech events in two speech databases of human–computer and human–human dialogs in Spanish. Language and Speech, 49, 333–366.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., & Cruise, K. (2000). Malingering and deception among psychopaths. In Gacono, C. B. (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner's guide (pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sodian, B., & Frith, U. (1992). Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 591–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, S., Hunter, M., Farrow, T., Green, R., Leung, D., Hughes, C. et al. (2004). A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 1755–1762.Google Scholar
Sporer, S., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1–34.Google Scholar
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal correlates of deception: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421–446.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Brown, L., & Mann, S. (2006). Detecting lies in young children, adolescents and adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1225–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239–264.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., & Heaven, S. (1999). Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 203–215.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2004). Detecting deception: The benefit of looking at a combination of behavioural, auditory and speech content related cues in a systematic manner. Group Decision and Negotiations, 13, 61–79.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrij, A., & Semin, G. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 65–80.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. (1991). Cultural patterns in Dutch and Surinam nonverbal behavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seeman, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755–774.Google Scholar
Yocom, J. D. (2007). An assessment of the validity of polygraph examinations for the psychophysiological detection of deception: A judicial opinion and research study review. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, 113–119.Google Scholar
Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F. & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81–106.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (Eds.). (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar