Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 117–134 | Cite as

An Examination and Validation of Linguistic Constructs for Studying High-Stakes Deception

  • Christie M. Fuller
  • David P. Biros
  • Judee Burgoon
  • Jay Nunamaker


Theories of deception have produced upwards of 150 potential verbal and nonverbal communication indicators. Of these, approximately 30 indicators, or cues, have been used previously with automated linguistic analysis tools to study text-based communication. The current research examines the interrelationships among these cues and proposes a set of specific constructs to be validated for high-stakes deception research. We analyzed linguistic-based cues extracted from 367 written statements prepared by suspects and victims of crimes on military bases. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate two models. The superior model retained seven constructs: quantity, specificity, affect, diversity, uncertainty, nonimmediacy, and activation.


Deception Construct validation Linguistic cues High-stakes deception Credibility assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American heritage dictionary (1991) 2nd College edn. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagozzi R (2010) Structural equation models are modeling tools with many ambiguities: comments acknowledging the need for caution and humility in their use. J Consumer Psychol 20: 208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond CF, DePaulo BM (2006) Accuracy of deception judgments. Pers Soc Psychol Rep 10: 214–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond GD, Lee AY (2005) Language of lies in prison: linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Appl Cogn Psychol 19: 313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buller DB, Burgoon JK (1996) Interpersonal deception theory. Commun Theory 6: 203–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgoon JK, Qin TT (2006) The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. J Lang Soc Psychol 25: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgoon JK, Burgoon M, Wilkinson M (1981) Writing style as a predictor of newspaper readership, satisfaction and image. Journal Q 58: 225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgoon JK, Buller DB, Guerroro LK, Afifi W, Feldman C (1996) Interpersonal deception: Xii. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages. Commun Monogr 63: 50–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgoon JK, Blair JP, Qin TT, Nunamaker JF (2003) Detecting deception through linguistic analysis. In: Lecture notes in computer science: intelligence and security informatics 2665. Springer, Berlin, pp 91–101Google Scholar
  10. Cao J, Crews JM, Lin M, Burgoon J, Nunamaker JF (2003) Designing agent99 trainer: a learner-centered, web-based training system for deception detection. In: Lecture notes in computer science: intelligence and security informatics 2665. Springer, Berlin, pp 358–365Google Scholar
  11. Chin WW, Todd PA (1995) On the use, usefullness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in mis research: a note of caution. MIS Q 19: 237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham H (2002) Gate, a general architecture for text engineering. Comput Humanit 36: 223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham H, Maynard D, Bontcheva K, Tablan V, Ursu C, Dimitrov M, Dowman M, Aswani N, Roberts I (2005) Developing language processing components with gate version 3 (a user guide) http://gate.Ac.Uk/sale/tao/index.Html#x1-1710008.4
  14. DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129: 74–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekman P (1985) Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. WW Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford EB (2006) Lie detection: historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions. Int J Psychiatry 29: 159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank MG, Feeley TH (2003) To catch a liar: challenges for research in lie detection training. J Appl Commun Res 31: 58–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuller C, Biros D, Wilson R (2009) Decision support for determining veracity via linguistic-based cues. Decis Support Syst 46: 695–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuller C, Biros DP, Adkins M, Burgoon J, Nunamaker JF Jr, Coulon S (2006a) Detecting deception in person-of-interest statements. In: Lecture notes in computer science 3975. Springer, Berlin, pp 504–509Google Scholar
  20. Fuller C, Biros DP, Twitchell D, Burgoon J, Adkins M (2006b) An analysis of text-based deception detection tools. In: Proceedings of twelfth Americas conference on information systems. Acapulco, Mexico, August 4–6Google Scholar
  21. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu L, Bentler PM (1998) Fit indexes in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 3: 424–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6: 1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iacobucci D (2010) Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. J Consum Psychol 20: 90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson MK, Raye CL (1981) Reality monitoring. Psychol Rev 88: 67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelloway EK (1998) Using lisrel for structural equation modeling: a researcher’s guide. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  27. Knapp ML, Hart RP, Dennis HS (1974) An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Commun Res 1: 15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCornack SA (1992) Information manipulation theory. Commun Monogr 59: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newman ML, Pennebaker JW, Berry DS, Richards JM (2003) Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29: 665–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP (1991) Measurement, design, and analysis: an integrated approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  31. Pennebaker JW, Francis ME (2001) Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Erlbaum Publishers, Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter S, Yuille JC (1996) The language of deceit: an investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law Hum Behav 20: 443–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pyle D (1999) Data preparation for data mining. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  34. Qin T, Burgoon J, Nunamaker JF (2004) An exploratory study on promising cues in deception detection and application of decision tree. In: Proceedings of 37th annual hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  35. Sporer SL (2004) Reality monitoring and detection of deception. In: Granhag P (ed) He detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 64–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Twitchell DP, Biros DP, Adkins M, Forsgren N, Burgoon JK, Nunamaker JF Jr (2006) Automated determination of the veracity of interview statements from people of interest to an operational security force. In: Proceedings of 39th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  37. Vrij A (2000) Detecting lies and deceit: the psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Vrij A, Mann S (2001) Who killed my relative? Police officers’ ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychol Crime Law 7: 119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vrij A, Edward K, Roberts KP, Bull R (2000) Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. J Nonverbal Behav 24: 239–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whissell C (1989) The dictionary of affect in language. In: Plutchik R, Kellerman H (eds) Emotion theory, research and experience: the measurement of emotions, vol. 4. Academic Press, London, pp 113–131Google Scholar
  41. Witten IH, Frank E (2000) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with java. Morgan Kaufman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhou L, Zhang DS (2006) A comparison of deception behavior in dyad and triadic group decision making in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Small Group Res 37: 140–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhou L, Burgoon JK, Twitchell DP (2003a) A longitudinal analysis of language behavior of deception in e-mail. In: Lecture notes in computer science: intelligence and security informatics 2665. Springer, Berlin, pp 102–110Google Scholar
  44. Zhou L, Twitchell DP, Qin TT, Burgoon JK, Nunamaker JF Jr (2003b) An exploratory study into deception detection in text-based computer-mediated communication. In: Proceedings of 36th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhou L, Burgoon JK, Nunamaker J, Jay F., Twitchell DP (2004a) Automated linguistics based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication: an empirical investigation. Group Decis Negotiat 13: 81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhou L, Burgoon JK, Twitchell DP, Qin TT, Nunamaker JF (2004b) A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication. J Manag Inf Syst 20: 139–165Google Scholar
  47. Zuckerman M, Driver RE (1985) Telling lies: verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In: Siegman AW, Feldstein S (eds) Multichannel integration of nonverbal behavior. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 129–147Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christie M. Fuller
    • 1
  • David P. Biros
    • 2
    • 3
  • Judee Burgoon
    • 4
  • Jay Nunamaker
    • 5
  1. 1.College of BusinessLouisiana Tech UniversityRustonUSA
  2. 2.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.Edith Cowen UniversityPerthAustralia
  4. 4.Center for the Management of InformationUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  5. 5.Soldwedel Professor of Management Information Systems, Communication, and Computer ScienceUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations