His Lips Are Moving: Pinocchio Effect and Other Lexical Indicators of Political Deceptions

Discourse Processes

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1-20

  Braun, Michael T ^a   Van Swol, Lyn M ^b   Vang, Lisa ^b  

^a MILLIKIN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84919840842     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.942833     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
2. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 663–678.
3. Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.
4. Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., Buslig, A., & Roiger, J. (1994). Interpersonal deception VIII: Further analysis of nonverbal and verbal correlates of equivocation from Bavelas et al. (1990) research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 396–417.
5. Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., Buslig, A., & Roiger, J. (1996). Testing interpersonal deception theory: The language of interpersonal deception. Communication Theory, 6, 268–289.
6. Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., Qin, T., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr (2003). Detecting deception through linguistic analysis. In H. Chen, R. Miranda, D. D. Zeng, C. Demchak, J. Schroeder, & T. Madhusudan (Eds.),Proceedings of the Symposium on Intelligence and Security Informatics (pp. 91–101). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
7. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Blair, J. P., & Tilley, P. (2006). Sex differences in presenting and detecting deceptive messages. In D.Canary & K.Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 263–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Dilman, L., & Walther, J. B. (1995). Interpersonal deception. Human Communication Research, 22, 163–196.
9. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Guerrero, L. K., Afifi, W., & Feldman, C. (1996). Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages. Communication Monographs, 63, 50–69.
10. Dalton, P., & McIlwain, C. (2011). Third-party “hatchet” ads: An exploratory content study comparing third-party and candidate spots from the 2004 presidential election. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 19, 129–151.
11. Davis, D., & Brock, T. C. (1975). Use of first person pronouns as a function of increased objective self-awareness and performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 381–388.
12. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
13. Duran, N. D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 439–462.
14. Garrett, R. K. (2011). Troubling consequences of online political rumoring. Human Communication Research, 37, 255–274.
15. Giordano, G. A., & George, J. F. (2005). Task complexity and deception detection in a collaborative group setting. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conferences on System Sciences. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
16. Giordano, G. A., Stoner, J. S., Brouer, R. L., & George, J. F. (2007). The influences of deception and computer-mediation on dyadic negotiations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 362–383.
17. Graesser, A. C., Zhiqiang, C., Louwerse, M. M., & Daniel, F. (2006). Question Understanding Aid (QUAID): A web facility that helps survey methodologists improve the comprehensibility of questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 3–22.
18. 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.
19. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects' strategies during interrogations. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 13, 213–227.
20. Ickes, W., Reidhead, S., & Patterson, M. (1986). Machiavellianism and self-monitoring: As different as “me” and “you.”Social Cognition, 4, 58–74.
21. Jackson, B., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). Finding fact in political debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 229–237.
22. Jahandarie, K. (1999). Spoken and written discourse: A multi-disciplinary perspective. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
23. Karpf, D. (2010). Macaca moments reconsidered: Electoral panopticon or netroots mobilization?Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7, 143–162.
24. Knapp, M. L., & Comadena, M. A. (1979). Telling it like it isn't: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications. Human Communication Research, 5, 270–285.
25. Larcker, D. F., & Zakolyukina, A. A. (2010). Detecting deceptive discussions in conference calls (Tech. Rep. No. 83). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Rock Center for Corporate Governance.
26. Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., … Lee, J. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377–403.
27. Markowitz, D., Hancock, J. T., & Bazarova, N. (2011, November). The language of presidential lies: How words can reflect lies about war, personal scandal, and state secrets. Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
28. McCornack, S. A. (1997). The generation of deceptive messages. Laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception. In J. O.Green (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 91–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. McCornack, S., Morrison, K., Paik, J. E., Wisner, A. M., & Zhu, X. (2014). Information manipulation theory 2: A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 348–377.
30. Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1966). Nonimmediacy between communicator and object of communication in a verbal message: Application to the inference of attitudes. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 420–425.
31. 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.
32. Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
33. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.
34. Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443–458.
35. Rayson, R. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13, 519–549.
36. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 614–622.
37. Schober, M. F., & Glick, P. J. (2011). Self-deceptive speech: A psycholinguistic view. In C.Piers (Ed.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 183–200). New York, NY: Springer.
38. Smith, J. R., & Terry, D. J. (2003). Attitude-behaviour consistency: The role of group norms, attitude accessibility, and mode of behavioural decision-making. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 591–608.
39. SoLET Lab. (2012). SiNLP: Simple NLP. Retrieved from http://129.219.222.66/Publish/sinlp.html.
40. Toma, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62, 78–97.
41. Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (in press-a). Communicating deception: Differences in language use, justification, and questions for lies, omissions, and truths. Group Decision and Negotiation.
42. Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (in press-b). Channel choice, justification of deception, and detection. Journal of Communication.
43. Van Swol, L. M., Braun, M. T., & Kolb, M. R. (in press). Deception, detection, demeanor and truth bias in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research.
44. Van Swol, L. M., Braun, M. T., & Malhotra, D. (2012). Evidence for the Pinocchio effect: Linguistic differences between lies, deception by omission, and truth. Discourse Processes, 49, 79–106.
45. Van Swol, L. M., Malhotra, D., & Braun, M. T. (2012). Deception and its detection: Effects of monetary incentives and personal relationship history. Communication Research, 39, 217–238.
46. Vorauer, J. D., & Ross, M. (1999). Self-awareness and feeling transparent: Failing to suppress one's self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 415–440.
47. Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
48. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
49. Vrij, A., Semin, G. R., & Bull, R. (1996). Insight into behavior displayed during deception. Human Communication Research, 22, 544–562.
50. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.
51. Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communications. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81–106.