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

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

doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9300-z

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

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

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

32 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	117-134
Number of pages	18
Journal	Group Decision and Negotiation
Volume	22
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9300-z
State	Published - Jan 2013

Keywords

Construct validation
Credibility assessment
Deception
High-stakes deception
Linguistic cues

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Decision Sciences
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
General Social Sciences
Strategy and Management
Management of Technology and Innovation

Access to Document

10.1007/s10726-012-9300-z

Cite this

@article{841f21507a3540f8a7b2e1883f64fca7,

title = "An Examination and Validation of Linguistic Constructs for Studying High-Stakes Deception",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Construct validation, Credibility assessment, Deception, High-stakes deception, Linguistic cues",

author = "Fuller, \{Christie M.\} and Biros, \{David P.\} and Judee Burgoon and Jay Nunamaker",

note = "Funding Information: Acknowledgments This project was partially funded by the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, Project DoDPI06-P-0041, Contract W991NF-07-1-0375. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. The authors wish to thank Steve Coulon for his assistance with data collection.",

year = "2013",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1007/s10726-012-9300-z",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "22",

pages = "117--134",

journal = "Group Decision and Negotiation",

issn = "0926-2644",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An Examination and Validation of Linguistic Constructs for Studying High-Stakes Deception

AU - Fuller, Christie M.

AU - Biros, David P.

AU - Burgoon, Judee

AU - Nunamaker, Jay

N1 - Funding Information: Acknowledgments This project was partially funded by the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, Project DoDPI06-P-0041, Contract W991NF-07-1-0375. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. The authors wish to thank Steve Coulon for his assistance with data collection.

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Construct validation

KW - Credibility assessment

KW - Deception

KW - High-stakes deception

KW - Linguistic cues

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84871335506

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84871335506#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1007/s10726-012-9300-z

DO - 10.1007/s10726-012-9300-z

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84871335506

SN - 0926-2644

VL - 22

SP - 117

EP - 134

JO - Group Decision and Negotiation

JF - Group Decision and Negotiation

IS - 1

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this