Palabras clave y léxico frecuente como indicadores de la mentira

Marcial Terradez Gurrea

Resumen


Aunque la creencia popular sostiene que el lenguaje no verbal es el mejor indicador a la hora de detectar la mentira, diferentes investigaciones han puesto de manifiesto que la combinación de lenguaje verbal y no verbal ofrece mayores porcentajes de acierto en la detección del engaño que el uso de uno solo de estos parámetros. De hecho, existe evidencia científica de que el lenguaje verbal puede ser el mejor predictor del comportamiento no veraz.

Para nuestra investigación, hemos elegido 38 informantes de entre 17 y 19 años, a los que se ha sometido a dos pruebas. En la primera de ellas, los informantes deben expresar la verdad o mentir ante una serie de preguntas previamente establecidas y comunes para todos ellos. En la segunda, deben escribir dos textos sobre un mismo tema, con la particularidad de que en uno de ellos tienen que decir la verdad y en el otro han de mentir.

Posteriormente, realizamos un análisis de frecuencias léxicas tanto de la prueba oral como de la escrita, y comparamos el listado de palabras clave de los textos no veraces con el listado de palabras clave de los textos verdaderos. En este artículo, presentaremos únicamente los resultados del estudio de los textos escritos.

Los resultados preliminares de nuestra investigación coinciden en parte con los de investigaciones previas; por ejemplo, aparece un mayor uso del pronombre de tercera persona cuando el hablante miente, y también mayor número de verbos sensitivos. Sin embargo, nuestra investigación llega a conclusiones novedosas, como el mayor número de convencionalismos y tópicos cuando se miente, o el uso de diferentes conectores según se diga la verdad o la mentira.


Palabras clave

Léxico frecuente, detección de la mentira, palabras clave, corpus, indicadores verbales de la mentira

 

 

Abstract (English)

Although popular beliefs sustain that nonverbal language is the best indicator when detecting a lie, different investigations have demonstrated that the combination of verbal and nonverbal language offers higher percentages of success in the detection of deception than using only one of these parameters. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that verbal language can be the best predictor of deceptive behavior.

 

For our investigation, we selected 38 informants ranging between 17 and 19 in age, who were submitted to two tests. In the first test, the informants have to express the truth or lie when responding to the same set of previously established questions. In the second test, they have to write two texts on the same subject, specifically lying in one and telling the truth in the other.

Afterwards, we analyzed the lexical frequencies in the oral as well as written tests, and we compared the list of frequent words of the deceptive texts with the list of words used the most in the truthful texts. In this paper, we just present the results of written texts.

The preliminary results of our investigation partially coincide with previous investigations; for example, more third person pronouns and more senstitive verbs are used when the speaker lies. However, our investigation has reached innovative conclusions, such as a higher number of cliche words when lying and the use of different connectors if telling a lie or the truth.

 

Keywords

Frequency vocabulary, deceit detection, keywords, corpus, verbal cues of detection

 


Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Bond, G. D., & Lee, A. L. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313–329.

Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.

Burgoon, J. K., & Floyd, K. (2000). Testing the motivational impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interactions. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 243–267.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Floyd, K. (2001). Does participation affect deception success? A test of the interactivity principle. Human Communication Research, 27, 503-534.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller,D. B., White, C. H., Afifi,W. A.,&Buslig, A. L. S. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 669–685.

Carlson, J. R., George, J. F., Burgoon, J. K., Adkins, M., & White, C. H. (2004). Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 5–28.

DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1713-1722.

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E.,Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-112.

DePaulo, B. M.,&Morris,W. L. (2004). Discerning lies from truths: Behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Downloaded By: [Columbia University] At: 11:39 29 July 2010.

Hancock, J. T. (2007). Digital deception: Why, where and how people lie online. In A. N. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 287–301). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes, 31, 91–110.

Hancock, J.T., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and design: The impact of communication technologies on lying behavior. Proceedings, Conference on Computer Human Interaction, 6, 130–136. New York, ACM.

Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S. y Woodworth, M. T. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45:1-23.

Ickes, W., Reidhead, S., Patterson, M. (1986). Machiavellianism and self-monitoring: As different as “me” and “you.” Social Cognition, 4, 58-74.

Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 67-85.

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.

Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1, 15-29.

Masip, J. (2005). ¿Se pilla antes a un mentiroso que a un cojo? Sabiduría popular frente a conocimiento científico sobre la detección no-verbal del engaño. Papeles del Psicólogo, 26, 78-91.

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.

Niederhoffer, K. G., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 337–360.

Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1296-1312.

Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pennebaker, J. W., Mayne, T. J., & Francis, M. E. (1997). Linguistic predictors of adaptive bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 863-871.

Pennebaker, J.W., & Francis, M. E. (1996). Cognitive, emotional, and language processes in disclosure. Cognition and Emotion, 10, 601- 626.

Pennebaker, J.W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.

Petrie, K. P., Booth, R. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1998). The immunological effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1264-1272.

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 Behaviour, 20, 443–458.

Raskin, D. C.,&Esplin, P.W. (1991). Statement validity assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children’s statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265–291.

Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 410 424.

Rosenberg, S. D., & Tucker, G. J. (1979). Verbal behavior and schizophrenia: The semantic dimension. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 1331-1337.

Schnake, S. B., & Ruscher, J. B. (1998). Modern racism as a predictor of the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 17, 484-491.

Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., Smith, M. S., & Ogilvy, D. M. (1966). The General Inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K.P, & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239-263.


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.