Gina Villar

“Um, I can tell you're lying”: Linguistic markers of deception versus truth-telling in speech

Lying is a deliberate attempt to transmit messages that mislead others. Analysis of language behaviors holds great promise as an objective method of detecting deception. The current study reports on the frequency of use and acoustic nature of “um” and “like” during laboratory-elicited lying versus truth-telling. Results obtained using a within-participants false opinion paradigm showed that instances of “um” occur less frequently and are of shorter duration during lying compared to truth-telling. There were no significant differences in relation to “like.” These findings contribute to our understanding of the linguistic markers of deception behavior. They also assist in our understanding of the role of “um” in communication more generally. Our results suggest that “um” may not be accurately conceptualized as a filled pause/hesitation or speech disfluency/error whose increased usage coincides with increased cognitive load or increased arousal during lying. It may instead carry a lexical status similar to interjections and form an important part of authentic, effortless communication, which is somewhat lacking during lying.

Use of “um” in the deceptive speech of a convicted murderer

Previous studies have demonstrated a link between language behaviors and deception; however, questions remain about the role of specific linguistic cues, especially in real-life high-stakes lies. This study investigated use of the so-called filler, “um,” in externally verifiable truthful versus deceptive speech of a convicted murderer. The data revealed significantly fewer instances of “um” in deceptive speech. These results are in line with our recent study of “um” in laboratory elicited low-stakes lies. Rather than constituting a filled pause or speech disfluency, “um” may have a lexical status similar to other English words and may be under the strategic control of the speaker. In an attempt to successfully deceive, humans may alter their speech, perhaps in order to avoid certain language behaviors that they think might give them away.

Linguistic Indicators of a False Confession

To date, most investigations of false confessions have focused on their prevention rather than their identification. In this study we investigated whether certain linguistic variables might help to distinguish between false confessional statements and true accounts. Using a within-subjects design, we elicited both false confessional statements and true accounts from 85 participants. We examined these for the presence of nouns, verbs and adjectives. Additionally, participants completed the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) to determine the relationship between noun, verb and adjective use and self-reported measures of state anxiety. Results showed that whereas nouns and verbs failed to discriminate between false confessions and true accounts, adjective use significantly decreased during false confessions. Anxiety was not associated with veracity. The current findings suggest that there are measurable linguistic differences between false confessions and true accounts that cannot be attributed to level of state anxiety.

One More Time without Feeling: Detecting Fabricated Remorse Using Linguistic Analysis

Despite the benefits to be gained from successfully feigning the emotion of remorse, few studies have addressed the identification of fabricated statements of remorse. We investigated whether there were differences in first person singular pronoun use between genuine versus deceptive displays of remorse in typewritten statements of remorse. Results showed that participants produced a significantly higher proportion of first person singular pronouns (I, me, and my) in their genuine versus deceptive statements. These findings suggest there are measurable differences in language use between genuine and falsified expressions of remorse and highlight the potential utility of language analysis in the identification of true versus fabricated statements of remorse.

The Presence of ‘Um’ as a Marker of Truthfulness in the Speech of TV Personalities

The aim of this study is to determine whether the presence of the interjection ‘um’ can distinguish between the deceptive and truthful speech of individuals who are practised in the art of impression management. A total of 50 truthful and 61 deceptive statements were extracted from the speech of celebrities participating in a televised comedy panel show where celebrity guests try to convince an opposing team of their truthfulness. Participants’ use of ‘um’ (measured as a percentage of the total word count of each statement) was analysed. The results show that, on average, ‘um’ was used almost three times as often in the speakers’ true statements compared to their false ones. A discriminant analysis revealed that the presence of ‘um’ is more effective than human judgement alone in determining veracity. These findings suggest that the presence of the filler ‘um’ in speech is useful in the identification of true versus false oral statements.