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:
Evidence for the Pinocchio effect: Linguistic differences between lies, deception by omission, and truth Lyn M. Van Swol & Michael T. Braun University of Wisconsin-Madison Deepak Malhotra Harvard Business School
Lie 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.
Omission A: 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?
Omission A: I’m giving you ten. R: Ten bucks? So they gave you 20? A: Ten is more than 7.50. 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.
Non-strategic linguistic cues Pronoun use: first person and third person Negative emotion words and suspicion Swearing and suspicion Higher cognitive load: concreteness, sentence complexity, type-token ratio, connectives
Strategic linguistic cues Word count – Pinocchio effect: greater words when reality cannot be verified/no concealment goals – Omission and reduced word count: concealment goal Causation words
Modified ultimatum game Endowment amount Roles: Allocator/Recipient Recipient only has knowledge of range of values Allocator allocates endowment between self and recipient Recipient can accept or reject offer If rejected, allocator gets nothing and recipient gets a default amount of 25% of endowment Interactions videotaped and transcribed
Method 102 dyads Given either $5/$30 endowment LIWC: Linguistic Word Count Inquiry software
VariableM MM First person singular (%)8.535.676.32 Third person ** (%) 0.940.000.17 Negative affect (%)1.101.040.54 Profanity** (%)0.270.000.05 Concreteness # 344.12372.60353.19 Words before verb1.761.16 Type token ratio0.790.910.90 Connectives69.4054.4458.32 Lies (n = 7) Omission (n = 26) Truth (n = 69) Note. * p < 0.05, ** p <.01 # Higher numbers indicate more concreteness.
VariableMMM Word Count**70.1431.1241.58 Causation* (%)2.500.431.31 Money** (%)5.351.821.05 Note. * p < 0.05, ** p <.01 Lies (n = 7) Omission (n = 26) Truth (n = 69)
Role of suspicion VariableMMM Profanity (%) Suspicion0.640.000.23 No suspicion0.00 0.18 Word count Suspicion62.3331.87100.11 No suspicion76.0030.0932.50 Connectives Suspicion22.1740.0376.95 No suspicion104.8274.0955.82 Lies Omission Truth
Multinomial logistic regression to predict offer type Deception Type = Lie Third person pronouns (%) B = 0.95* Number words (%) B = 0.45** Note. * p <.05, ** p <.01
Conclusions Importance of context with word count Without verifiable reality: Pinocchio effect With concealment goal: reduced word count Replicated past research with third person pronouns Tentative results about profanity Negative emotion words and suspicion