A Longitudinal Analysis of Language Behavior of Deception in E-mail

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2665)


The detection of deception is a promising but challenging task. Previous exploratory research on deception in computer-mediated communication found that language cues were effective in differentiating deceivers from truth-tellers. However, whether and how these language cues change over time remains an open issue. In this paper, we investigate the effect of time on cues to deception in an empirical study. The preliminary results showed that some cues to deception change over time, while others do not. The explanation for the lack of change in the latter cases is provided. In addition, we show that the number and type of cues to deception vary from time to time. We also suggest what could be the best time to investigate cues to deception in a continuous email communication.


Positive Affect Noun Phrase Nonverbal Behavior Lexical Diversity Computer Mediate Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. B. Buller and J. K. Burgoon, “Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication,” in Strategic interpersonal communication, J. A. Daly and J. M. Wiemann, Eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994, pp. 191–223.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. B. Buller and J. K. Burgoon, “Interpersonal Deception Theory,” Communication Theory, vol. 6, pp. 203–242, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. K. Burgoon, D. B. Buller, A. S. Ebesu, and P. Rockwell, “Interpersonal deception V: Accuracy in deception detection,” Communication Monographs, vol. 61, pp. 303–325, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Burgoon and D. B. Buller, “Interpersonal deception: xi. effects of deceit on perceived communication and non-verbal behavior dynamics,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, vol. 18, pp. 155–184, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. K. Burgoon, D. E. Buller, L. K. Guerrero, W. A. Afifi, and C. M. Feldman, “Interpersonal Deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages,” Communication Monographs, vol. 63, pp. 52–69, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. K. Burgoon, D. B. Buller, C. H. White, W. Afifi, and A. L. S. Buslig, “The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions,” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25, pp. 669–685, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. K. Burgoon, N. Miczo, and L. A. Miczo, “Adaptation during deceptive interactions: testing the effects of time and partner communication style,” presented at National Communication Association Convention, Atlanta, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Crystal, Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Daft and R. Lengel, “Organizational information, message richness and structural design,” Management Science, vol. 32, pp. 554–571, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. M. DePaulo, J. T. Stone, and G. D. Lassiter, “Deceiving and detecting deceit,” in The Self and Social Life, B. R. Schlenker, Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Ekman and M. O’Sullivan, “Who Can Catch a Liar?,” American Psychologist, vol. 46, pp. 913–920, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. F. George and J. R. Carlson, “Group support systems and deceptive communication,” presented at HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Höfer, L. Akehurst, and G. Metzger, “Reality monitoring: a chance for further development of CBCA?,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the European Association on Psychology and Law, Sienna, Italy, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. E. Johnson, S. Grazioli, K. Jamal, and R. G. Berryman, “Detecting deception: adversarial problem solving in a low base-rate world,” Cognitive Science, vol. 25, pp. 355–392, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. E. Kraut, “Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 380–391, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Porter and J. C. Yuille, “The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 20, pp. 443–458, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Steller and G. Köhnken, “Criteria-Based Content Analysis,” in Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence, D. C. Raskin, Ed. New York: Springer Verlag, 1989, pp. 217–245.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Vrij, K. Edward, K. P. Robert, and R. Bull, “Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, pp. 239–264, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Voutilainen, “Helsinki taggers and parsers for English,” in Corpora Galore: Analysis and techniques in describing English, J. M. Kirk, Ed. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. H. White and J. K. Burgoon, “Adaptation and communicative design: Patterns of interaction in truthful and deceptive conversation,” Human Communication Research, vol. 27, pp. 9–37, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Zhou, D. Twitchell, T. Qin, J. Burgoon, and J. Nunamaker, “An Exploratory Study into Deception Detection in Text-based Computer-Mediated Communication,” presented at 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of MarylandBaltimore County
  2. 2.Center for the Management of InformationUniversity of ArizonaUSA

Personalised recommendations