His Lips Are Moving: Pinocchio Effect and Other Lexical Indicators of Political Deceptions

Abstract

Using the software program LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count), this study used political statements classified as truths and lies by website Politifact.com and examined lexical differences between statement type (lie or truth) and the setting (interactive or scripted) in which the statement was given. In interactive settings (where statements given are prompted by questioning), politicians used shorter sentences, simpler words, and fewer causation statements than statements given in scripted settings (where statements are prepared in advance). Lying politicians used more words and negation statements than truth-tellers in both interactive and scripted settings. In interactive settings, politicians used more first-person pronouns. There were no main effects of deception on use of first- and third-person pronouns. Further, there are no effects of deception on use of negative emotion words or profanity. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of setting for studying lexical differences in deception and implications for the study of deception in political communication.

Acknowledgments

We thank Andrea Carlson, Daniel Kaplan, Peter Moomjian, Lindsay Montgomery, Carla Pentimone, and Randi Russell for their help with data collection and coding.

Notes

¹ Our hypotheses are based on past research that focuses on falsification and bold-faced lies. These types of deception may be different from equivocations (Buller et al., 1994, 1996; Van Swol et al., 2012) and self-deception (Pennebaker, 2011). For further comment on how this may affect the results of this study, please refer to Discussion.