Language

Deciphering Linguistic Clues

Although most studies indicate that deceivers talk more than truth-tellers, empirical findings highlight the importance of task when analyzing linguistic cues associated with deception. When constructing a deception about a verifiable fact, for instance, deceivers offer fewer words than truth-tellers. Similarly, lies of commission associate with increased word count, but lies of omission associate with decreased words counts. Deceptive denials also tend to be shorter than truthful confessions, as deceivers give less detail when their stories contrast a verifiable event. A person lying about a verifiable event, such as their specific whereabouts on a certain night, is more likely to speak in shorter sentences that offer less detail. One way that deceivers offer fewer specific details than truth-tellers is through an increased use of abstract language.

Deceivers tend to use more abstract language in an attempt to conceal the truth from others. High [Page 582]levels of abstraction in language describe events and actions in broad terms (for example, “fruit,” “exercising”) and thus obscure the specific details of a story. In contrast, low levels of abstraction in language offer specific details (for example, “navel orange,” “Bikram yoga”) and provide a more concrete description of the events for the receiver. Thus, a person trying to deceive the receiver of a message tends to speak in abstract generalities that obscure a receiver's specific understanding of the event. In answer to the question, “Where were you last night?” a deceiver is more likely to answer “Out with some friends,” rather than “Watching the Mets game at the Eastside Bar and Grill with my friend John.” Deceivers' tendency to speak in abstract language is not without consequence, as the lack of detail and concrete language in deceivers' language often prompts increased questions from their conversational partner, thus inducing a greater number of conversational turns and total word count for deceivers.

...