Cues to deception in a textual narrative context : lying in written witness statements
Little research has been undertaken into high stakes deception, and even less into high stakes deception in written text. This study addresses that gap. In this thesis, I present a new approach to detecting deception in written narratives based on the definition of deception as a progression and focusing on identifying deceptive linguistic strategy rather than individual cues. I propose a new approach for subdividing whole narratives into their constituent episodes, each of which is linguistically profiled and their progression mapped to identify authorsâ deceptive strategies based on cue interaction. I conduct a double blind study using qualitative and quantitative analysis in which linguistic strategy (cue interaction and progression) and overall cue presence are used to predict deception in witness statements. This results in linguistic strategy analysis correctly predicting 85% of deceptive statements (92% overall) compared to 54% (64% overall) with cues identified on a whole statement basis. These results suggest that deception cues are not static, and that the value of individual cues as deception predictors is linked to their interaction with other cues. Results also indicate that in certain cue combinations,
Picornell, Isabel
Cues to deception in a textual narrative context : lying in written witness statements. Little research has been undertaken into high stakes deception, and even less into high stakes deception in written text. This study addresses that gap. In this thesis, I present a new approach to detecting deception in written narratives based on the definition of deception as a progression and focusing on identifying deceptive linguistic strategy rather than individual cues. I propose a new approach for subdividing whole narratives into their constituent episodes, each of which is linguistically profiled and their progression mapped to identify authorsâ deceptive strategies based on cue interaction. I conduct a double blind study using qualitative and quantitative analysis in which linguistic strategy (cue interaction and progression) and overall cue presence are used to predict deception in witness statements. This results in linguistic strategy analysis correctly predicting 85% of deceptive statements (92% overall) compared to 54% (64% overall) with cues identified on a whole statement basis. These results suggest that deception cues are not static, and that the value of individual cues as deception predictors is linked to their interaction with other cues. Results also indicate that in certain cue combinations,
deception textual narrative context lie write witness statement little undertaken high stake deception even_less high stake deception write_text study address_gap present_new detect deception write narrative base definition deception progression focus identify deceptive linguistic strategy rather_individual cue propose_new subdivide whole narrative constituent episode linguistically profile progression map identify author deceptive strategy base cue interaction conduct double blind study use qualitative_quantitative analysis linguistic strategy cue interaction progression overall cue presence use_predict deception witness statement linguistic strategy analysis correctly predict deceptive statement overall compare overall cue identify whole statement basis suggest deception cue static value individual cue deception predictor link interaction cue also_indicate certain cue combination