1.  Hailey Maurer and Liya Zalaltdinova Lying Words: Predicting Deception From Linguistic Styles by Matthew L. Newman, James W. Pennebaker, Diane S. Berry and Jane M. Richards

2. Outline of the presentation:  Historical underpinning for the study;  Theoretical frame of the study;  Hypothesis;  Methods of the study;  Results;  Limitations to the study;  Conclusion.

3. True stories False stories Experience Attitudes

4. linguistic features

5. Susan Smith, 1994 the analysis of their speech false information

6. “My children wanted me. They needed me. And now I can’t help them”. (Kastor, 1994)

7. Don’t liars have a very high control of their stories and they are very careful?

8. A doctor visiting a patient remarked: “I hope you will NOT soon leave your bed”. (Freud,1901)

9. HOW WHAT

10. Pronoun use, emotionally toned words, preposition and conjunction that signal cognitive work. Behavioral and emotional outcomes

11. Constant use of self-references suicide

12. Cognitive words higher grades, better health and immune function.

13. The linguistic manifestation of false stories.

14. false communication profile truthful communication profile

16. the predictive ability

17. the analysis of language people used for writing and speaking about personal topics  certain linguistic profile same features could be associated with deception and honesty in communication: creating a false story about a personal topic takes work and results in a different pattern of language use

18. Deceptive linguistic markers:  fewer self reference;  more negative emotion words;  fewer markers of cognitive complexity.

19. 1. Fewer self reference: - to “dissociate”; - to be non-immediate; - to avoid taking responsibility.

20. 2. More negative emotion words (hate, worthless, sad):

21. 2. fewer markers of cognitive complexity “honest” style: - higher number of “exclusive words” (except, but, without) - evaluations and judgments (Usually I take the bus, but it was such a nice day) Liar’s style: -concrete verbs (I walked home), -more motion verbs (walk, move, go)

22. Previous study: fewer self reference or more negative emotion words or fewer markers of cognitive complexity. Present study: fewer self reference+ more negative emotion words+ fewer markers of cognitive complexity

23. Liars would use fewer self reference+ more negative emotion words+ fewer markers of cognitive complexity. A linguistic profile of deception would be more accurate detecting deception than opinion of untrained human judges.

24. Study 1. Videotaped abortion attitudes (101). True& False

25. Study 2. Typed abortion attitudes (44). True& False

26. Study 3. Handwritten abortion attitude (55). True& False

27. Study 4. Feeling about friends (27). LIKED DISLIKED

28. Study 5. Mock time (60).

29. Interrogation: a)to indicate whether they had taken money; b)describe what they had done in the room; c)describe the content of the room; d)describe one more time what they had done in the room.

30. presenters were assigned randomly to defend this or that position particular set of transcripts have more pro-life than pro-choice opinions

31. 29 variables: -use of first person, -third person, -articles, -prepositions, -articles, -motion verbs, -present tense verbs, -future tense verbs exclusive, -inclusive…

32. Results 1. To develop and test a linguistic analysis profile of deception 2. To discover how accurate the human judges were when compared to the computer-based LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) profile  First, the authors analyzed the five studies using a text analysis program  Important to remember: o The problem with previous studies was because they focused on mostly individual word categories o This study presented a more in depth view of linguistic markers to get “the whole picture”

33. Data Supports Hypothesis Liars showed lower cognitive complexity Liars used fewer self- references Liars used more negative emotion words

34. More Findings  Across the five studies, deceptive communications contained these characteristics: 1. Fewer first-person singular pronouns  I, me, my 2. Fewer third-person pronouns 3. More negative emotion words 4. Fewer exclusive words 5. More motion verbs Unexpected Findings: The authors were surprised to find that liars used a fewer number of third-person references than truth-tellers

36. Interpreting the Results  Second, how accurate are human judges compared to the computer- based LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) profile at predicting deception? The LIWC program correctly classified 67% of the abortion communications and the judges correctly classified 52% of the abortion communications This means that not only is the linguistic structure and properties of deceptive communication qualitatively different than truthful communication, but also that is a measurable difference.

37. Limitations to this Study  1. This particular model is structured after the English language, and maybe only American English  Besides having different word labels, other languages may have different linguistic markers than English  For example, the use of first-person pronouns, might not be able to be generalized to other languages (Yo soy  often drop the “yo” linguistic marker  2. There’s was little to no external motivation present in the study for participants  Participants were told to lie convincingly  In the mock crime scene, participants received $1.  But, the price of barely a cup of coffee is nothing compared to something bigger at stake in the real world