Presentation on theme: "Evidence for the Pinocchio effect: Linguistic differences between lies, deception by omission, and truth Lyn M. Van Swol & Michael T. Braun University."— Presentation transcript:
1Evidence for the Pinocchio effect: Linguistic differences between lies, deception by omission, and truthLyn M. Van Swol & Michael T. BraunUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonDeepak MalhotraHarvard Business School
2Types of deception Bald-faced lie Omission Define: Omission is generally viewed as less severe
3Lie A: Um, I’m giving you a dollar fifty. R: You’re giving me a dollar fifty. How much did they give you?A: Three dollars.R: You’re lying. You know why?A: Why?R: Because I heard her say she gave you five bucks.A: Well, that’s part of her experiment, she’s trying to fuck with you. Probably shouldn’t say that with the camera..whatever.
4OmissionA: Okay, so I’m allocating 10 dollars to you, so I don’t know if you want 10 dollars or not.R: That’s fine.A: I don’t know if you can deal with that. Okay, so how are you doing?
5Omission A: I’m giving you ten. R: Ten bucks? So they gave you 20? A: Ten is more than So I figured…R: Yeah. The only thing I’m interested in is if they gave you thirty or not.A: Only if what?R: The only thing I’d have a problem with is if they gave you 30 or not. And I know you wouldn’t dick me over, so.A: And of course, we’d all figure this out later.R: What?A: We could figure this all out later.
6Non-strategic linguistic cues Pronoun use: first person and third personNegative emotion words and suspicionSwearing and suspicionHigher cognitive load: concreteness, sentence complexity, type-token ratio, connectives
7Strategic linguistic cues Word countPinocchio effect: greater words when reality cannot be verified/no concealment goalsOmission and reduced word count: concealment goalCausation words
8Modified ultimatum game Endowment amountRoles: Allocator/RecipientRecipient only has knowledge of range of valuesAllocator allocates endowment between self and recipientRecipient can accept or reject offerIf rejected, allocator gets nothing and recipient gets a default amount of 25% of endowmentInteractions videotaped and transcribed
9Method 102 dyads Given either $5/$30 endowment LIWC: Linguistic Word Count Inquiry software
10Lies (n = 7) Omission (n = 26) Truth (n = 69) VariableMFirst person singular (%)8.535.676.32Third person** (%)0.940.000.17Negative affect (%)1.101.040.54Profanity** (%)0.270.05Concreteness#344.12372.60353.19Words before verb1.761.16Type token ratio0.790.910.90Connectives69.4054.4458.32Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < .01# Higher numbers indicate more concreteness.
11Lies (n = 7) Omission (n = 26) Truth (n = 69) VariableMWord Count**70.1431.1241.58Causation* (%)2.500.431.31Money** (%)5.351.821.05Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < .01
12Role of suspicion Lies Omission Truth Variable M Profanity (%) 0.640.000.23No suspicion0.18Word count62.3331.87100.1176.0030.0932.50Connectives22.1740.0376.95104.8274.0955.82
13Multinomial logistic regression to predict offer type Deception Type = LieThird person pronouns (%) B = 0.95*Number words (%) B = 0.45**Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
14Conclusions Importance of context with word count Without verifiable reality: Pinocchio effectWith concealment goal: reduced word countReplicated past research with third person pronounsTentative results about profanityNegative emotion words and suspicion