Is the Truth in Your Words? Distinguishing Children’s Deceptive and Truthful Statements

Abstract

Children's (N = 48) and adults' (N = 28) truthful and deceptive statements were compared using a linguistics-based computer software program. Children (4 to 7 years of age) and adults (18 to 25 years of age) participated in a mock courtroom experiment, in which they were asked to recount either a true or fabricated event. Testimonies were then analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count Software (LIWC; Pennebaker et al. 2007). This software has been previously used to detect adults' deceptive statements (e.g., Bond and Lee, 2005). To date, no research has used this method on children's narratives, nor has this software been used to compare those narratives to adult counterparts. Markers generated through the LIWC program achieved detection rates of 72.40% for samples of both children's and adults' narratives combined. In contrast, adult laypersons' (N = 48) detection rates, for the same narratives (i.e., both children and adults) were close to chance. More specifically, detection rates were above chance for truth (65.00%) and below chance for lies (45.00%). Thus, the linguistic profile provided through LIWC yielded greater accuracy for evaluating the veracity of children's and adults' narratives compared to adult laypersons' detection accuracy.

The Role of Account Length in Detecting Deception in Written and Orally Produced Autobiographical Accounts using Reality Monitoring

“…This suggests that the RM criteria may potentially outperform word count per se in predicting veracity. It can also be noted that, notwithstanding the finding that, other things being equal, truthful accounts tend to be shorter than deceptive ones (Zhou, Burgoon, Nunamaker, & Twitchell, ), a recent meta‐analysis of linguistic cues accessed by computer programs has questioned whether word count per se can generally be considered a reliable cue to deceptive behaviour (Hauch, Blandón‐Gitlin, Masip, & Sporer, ).This finding is in line with research using the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) computer software, which also shows that length per se is not a reliable cue to deception (Masip, Bethencourt, Lucas, Sánchez‐San Segundo, & Herrero, ; Williams, Talwar, Lindsay, Bala, & Lee, ). In other words, to predict veracity with any degree of accuracy, the variable of length needs to be considered in conjunction with other cues and with reference to the conditions under which the study has been conducted.…”

“…linguistic processes, psychological processes, personal concerns, and spoken categories). Although some success has been reported using LIWC with both adults and children, it has yet to be compared with RM (Williams et al ., ).…”

Does parental coaching affect children's false reports? Comparing verbal markers of deception

“…Some support has been found to indicate that children's false reports are shorter in length (Brunet et al, ), contain less reproduction of dialogue (Tye, Amato, Honts, & Devitt, ), fewer spontaneous corrections (Saykaly, Talwar, Lindsay, Bala, & Lee, ), and more negative emotion words (Williams et al, ). However, unlike adults, children's false narratives appear to contain more first‐person pronouns (Brunet et al, ; Williams et al, ). While adults may attempt to distance themselves from the lie (Bond & Lee, ; Newman et al, ), children may find it easier to produce details in relation to themselves.…”

“…Children's fabricated reports also typically contain more temporal and perceptual information (e.g., Bruck, Ceci, & Hembrooke, ; Evans et al, ; Saykaly, Talwar, Lindsay, Bala, & Lee, ), although this is not always the case (e.g., Roberts & Lamb, ). Moreover, the amount of spatial information reported has varied across true and fabricated reports (e.g., Evans et al, ; Tye et al, ; Williams et al, ). Results have also been mixed regarding admissions of lack of knowledge (e.g., “I don’t know”, “I can’t remember”), with some studies revealing more in truthful reports (e.g., Bruck et al, ) and others showing more in fabricated reports (e.g., Saykaly, Talwar, Lindsay, Bala, & Lee, ).…”

“…The second aim of the current study was to determine how the quantity of coaching (i.e., time) affected verbal markers in children's true and fabricated reports. Using a verbal marker coding scheme from Saykaly, Talwar, Lindsay, Bala, and Lee (), and based on previous findings with children (e.g., Bruck et al, ; Brunet et al, ; Williams et al, ), we hypothesized that truthful accounts would have a higher word count, greater use of self‐corrections, and more spatial, perceptual, and affective information than intentional false reports. Intentional false reports would contain more self‐references, greater admissions of lack of knowledge, more temporal markers, and more cognitive processes terms than truthful accounts (Hypothesis 2).…”