Linguistic Obfuscation in Fraudulent Science

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 435-445

  Markowitz, David M ^a   Hancock, Jeffrey T ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Coh Metrix; deception; LIWC; scientific fraud; text analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84981333039     PISSN: 0261927X     EISSN: 15526526     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X15614605     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. D.BiberU.ConnorT.A.Upton (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
2. J.P.BlairT.R.LevineA.S.Shaw (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 423-442.
3. R.J.Bloomfield (2002). The “incomplete revelation hypothesis” and financial reporting. Accounting Horizons, 16, 233-243.
4. C.F.BondB.M.DePaulo (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.
5. D.B.BullerJ.K.Burgoon (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242.
6. J.K.BurgoonW.J.MayewJ.S.GiboneyA.C.ElkinsK.MoffittB.DornL.. Spitzley (2015). Which spoken language markers identify deception in high-stakes settings? Evidence from earnings conference calls. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0261927X15586792
7. A.CasadevallF.C.Fang (2012). Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80, 891-896.
8. J.K.Courtis. (1998). Annual report readability variability: Tests of the obfuscation hypothesis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 11, 459.
9. F.C.FangR.G.SteenA.Casadevall (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17028-17033.
10. R.Flesch (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
11. J.T.HancockM.T.WoodworthS.Porter (2013). Hungry like the wolf: A word-pattern analysis of the language of psychopaths. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 102-114.
12. V.HauchI.Blandón-GitlinJ.MasipS.L.Sporer (2014). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 307-342.
13. S.L.HumpherysK.C.MoffittM.B.BurnsJ.K.BurgoonW.F.Felix (2011). Identification of fraudulent financial statements using linguistic credibility analysis. Decision Support Systems, 50, 585-594.
14. D.F.LarckerA.A.Zakolyukina (2012). Detecting deceptive discussions in conference calls. Journal of Accounting Research, 50, 495-540.
15. L.LarrimoreL.JiangJ.LarrimoreD.M.MarkowitzS.Gorski (2011). Peer to peer lending: The relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39, 19-37.
16. F.Li (2008). Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45, 221-247.
17. S.F.LuG.Z.JinB.UzziB.Jones (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the web of science. Scientific Reports, 3, 1-4.
18. D.M.MarkowitzJ.T.Hancock (2014). Linguistic traces of a scientific fraud: The case of Diederik Stapel. PLoS ONE, 9, e105937.
19. D.S.McNamaraA.C.GraesserP.M.McCarthyZ.Cai (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. D.S.McNamaraM.M.LouwerseZ.CaiA.C.Graesser (2013). Coh-Metrix version 3.0. Retrieved from http://cohmetrix.com.
21. M.L.NewmanJ.W.PennebakerD.S.BerryJ.M.Richards (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.
22. M.OttY.ChoiC.CardieJ.T.Hancock (2011, June). Finding deceptive online spam by any stretch of the imagination. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR.
23. J.W.Pennebaker (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. London, UK: Bloomsbury Press.
24. J.W.PennebakerR.J.BoothM.E.Francis (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates. Retrieved from www.liwc.net.
25. S.RudeE.-M.GortnerJ.Pennebaker (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1121-1133.
26. U.Simonsohn (2013). Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone. Psychological Science, 24, 1875-1888.
27. U.SimonsohnL.D.NelsonJ.P.Simmons (2014). p-Curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 666-681.
28. Y.R.TausczikJ.W.Pennebaker (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.
29. C.TomaJ.T.Hancock (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62, 78-97.