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

References

• Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 663–678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., Buslig, A., & Roiger, J. (1994). Interpersonal deception VIII: Further analysis of nonverbal and verbal correlates of equivocation from Bavelas et al. (1990) research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 396–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., Buslig, A., & Roiger, J. (1996). Testing interpersonal deception theory: The language of interpersonal deception. Communication Theory, 6, 268–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., Qin, T., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr (2003). Detecting deception through linguistic analysis. In H. Chen, R. Miranda, D. D. Zeng, C. Demchak, J. Schroeder, & T. Madhusudan (Eds.),Proceedings of the Symposium on Intelligence and Security Informatics (pp. 91–101). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Blair, J. P., & Tilley, P. (2006). Sex differences in presenting and detecting deceptive messages. In D.Canary & K.Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 263–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Dilman, L., & Walther, J. B. (1995). Interpersonal deception. Human Communication Research, 22, 163–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Guerrero, L. K., Afifi, W., & Feldman, C. (1996). Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages. Communication Monographs, 63, 50–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, P., & McIlwain, C. (2011). Third-party “hatchet” ads: An exploratory content study comparing third-party and candidate spots from the 2004 presidential election. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 19, 129–151.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, D., & Brock, T. C. (1975). Use of first person pronouns as a function of increased objective self-awareness and performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 381–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duran, N. D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 439–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K. (2011). Troubling consequences of online political rumoring. Human Communication Research, 37, 255–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giordano, G. A., & George, J. F. (2005). Task complexity and deception detection in a collaborative group setting. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conferences on System Sciences. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Giordano, G. A., Stoner, J. S., Brouer, R. L., & George, J. F. (2007). The influences of deception and computer-mediation on dyadic negotiations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 362–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Zhiqiang, C., Louwerse, M. M., & Daniel, F. (2006). Question Understanding Aid (QUAID): A web facility that helps survey methodologists improve the comprehensibility of questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 3–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects' strategies during interrogations. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 13, 213–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ickes, W., Reidhead, S., & Patterson, M. (1986). Machiavellianism and self-monitoring: As different as “me” and “you.”Social Cognition, 4, 58–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, B., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). Finding fact in political debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 229–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jahandarie, K. (1999). Spoken and written discourse: A multi-disciplinary perspective. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Karpf, D. (2010). Macaca moments reconsidered: Electoral panopticon or netroots mobilization?Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7, 143–162.
   Google Scholar
• Knapp, M. L., & Comadena, M. A. (1979). Telling it like it isn't: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications. Human Communication Research, 5, 270–285.
   Google Scholar
• Larcker, D. F., & Zakolyukina, A. A. (2010). Detecting deceptive discussions in conference calls (Tech. Rep. No. 83). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Rock Center for Corporate Governance.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., … Lee, J. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz, D., Hancock, J. T., & Bazarova, N. (2011, November). The language of presidential lies: How words can reflect lies about war, personal scandal, and state secrets. Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• McCornack, S. A. (1997). The generation of deceptive messages. Laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception. In J. O.Green (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 91–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• McCornack, S., Morrison, K., Paik, J. E., Wisner, A. M., & Zhu, X. (2014). Information manipulation theory 2: A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 348–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1966). Nonimmediacy between communicator and object of communication in a verbal message: Application to the inference of attitudes. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 420–425.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665–675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayson, R. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13, 519–549.
   Google Scholar
• Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 614–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober, M. F., & Glick, P. J. (2011). Self-deceptive speech: A psycholinguistic view. In C.Piers (Ed.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 183–200). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. R., & Terry, D. J. (2003). Attitude-behaviour consistency: The role of group norms, attitude accessibility, and mode of behavioural decision-making. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 591–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SoLET Lab. (2012). SiNLP: Simple NLP. Retrieved from http://129.219.222.66/Publish/sinlp.html.
   Google Scholar
• Toma, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62, 78–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (in press-a). Communicating deception: Differences in language use, justification, and questions for lies, omissions, and truths. Group Decision and Negotiation.
   Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (in press-b). Channel choice, justification of deception, and detection. Journal of Communication.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M., Braun, M. T., & Kolb, M. R. (in press). Deception, detection, demeanor and truth bias in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research.
   Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M., Braun, M. T., & Malhotra, D. (2012). Evidence for the Pinocchio effect: Linguistic differences between lies, deception by omission, and truth. Discourse Processes, 49, 79–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M., Malhotra, D., & Braun, M. T. (2012). Deception and its detection: Effects of monetary incentives and personal relationship history. Communication Research, 39, 217–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vorauer, J. D., & Ross, M. (1999). Self-awareness and feeling transparent: Failing to suppress one's self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 415–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Semin, G. R., & Bull, R. (1996). Insight into behavior displayed during deception. Human Communication Research, 22, 544–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communications. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar