13 MAY 2013  RESEARCH & IDEAS

How to Spot a Liar

Key linguistic cues can help reveal dishonesty during business negotiations, whether it's a flat-out lie or a deliberate omission of key information, according to research by Lyn M. Van Swol, Michael T. Braun, and Deepak Malhotra.

 

by Carmen Nobel

Want to know if someone's lying to you? Telltale signs may include running of the mouth, an excessive use of third-person pronouns, and an increase in profanity.

These are among the findings of a recent experimental study that delves into the language of deception, detailed in the paper Evidence for the Pinocchio Effect: Linguistic Differences Between Lies, Deception by Omissions, and Truths, which was published in the journal Discourse Processes. Asked why the topic of deception is important to business research, negotiation expert Deepak Malhotra responds wryly: "As it turns out, some people will lie and cheat in business!"

Malhotra, the Eli Goldston Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, coauthored the paper with Associate Professor Lyn M. Van Swol and doctoral candidate Michael T. Braun, both from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. "Most people admit to having lied in negotiations, and everyone believes they've been lied to in these contexts," Malhotra says. "We may be able to improve the situation if we can equip people to detect and deter the unethical behavior of others."

“JUST LIKE PINOCCHIO’S NOSE, THE NUMBER OF WORDS GREW ALONG WITH THE LIE”

"Evidence for the Pinocchio Effect" fills a key gap in the field of deception research, says Van Swol, the study's lead author. Previous studies have examined the linguistic differences between lies and truthful statements. But this one goes a step further to consider the differences between flat-out lying and so-called deception by omission—that is, the willful avoidance of divulging important information, either by changing the subject or by saying as little as possible.

THE ULTIMATUM GAME

To garner a sample of truth tellers, liars, and deceivers by omission, the researchers recruited 104 participants to play the ultimatum game, a popular tool among experimental economists. In the traditional version of the game, one player (the allocator) receives a sum of money and proposes how to divvy it up with a partner (the receiver). The receiver has the option of either accepting the proposed split or refusing the allocator's proposal—in which case neither player gets any of the money. Because receivers will often reject offers they perceive as unfair, leaving both parties with nothing, it behooves the allocator to offer an amount that will be deemed fair by the receiver. In many instances, allocators choose to share half, Malhotra says.

For the purposes of the deception experiment, the rules of the ultimatum game differed from the traditional version in three ways. First, in this version, the allocator received an endowment of either $30 or $5 to share with the receiver. The receiver had no way of verifying how much money the allocator had been given, information which the allocator was not required to divulge. Hence, an allocator could conceivably give the receiver $2 and keep $28, and the receiver would be none the wiser, perhaps assuming only $5 was in play. The second change was that if the receiver rejected the allocator's offer he or she would receive a default amount of $7.50 (or $1.25)—whereas the allocator would get no money at all.

Finally, each game included two minutes of videotaped conversation in which the receiver could grill the allocator with questions, prior to deciding whether to accept or reject the offer. This provided ample opportunity for the allocator to tell the truth about the money, lie, or try to avoid the subject altogether. "We wanted to create a situation where people could choose to lie or not lie, and it would happen naturally," Van Swol says.

Ultimately, the receiver had to decide whether the proposed allocation was fair and honest, based only on a conversation with the allocator. Thus, it behooved the allocator to be either a fair person or a good liar.

As it turned out, 70 percent of the allocators were honest, telling the receivers the true amount of the endowment and/or offering them at least half of the pot. The remaining 30 percent of allocators were classified either as liars (meaning they flat-out lied about the amount of the endowment) or as deceivers by omission (meaning they evaded questions about the amount of the endowment, but ultimately offered the receiver less than half).

After a graduate student transcribed all the allocator/receiver conversations, the researchers carefully analyzed the linguistic content, comparing the truth tellers against the liars and deceivers in order to suss out cues for deception. They looked for both strategic and nonstrategic language cues.

"A strategic cue is a conscious strategy to reduce the likelihood of the deception being detected," Van Swol explains, "whereas a nonstrategic cue is an emotional response, and people aren't usually aware that they're doing it."

KEY FINDINGS: WORD COUNT, PROFANITY, AND PRONOUNS

In terms of strategic cues, the researchers discovered the following:

• Bald-faced liars tended to use many more words during the ultimatum game than did truth tellers, presumably in an attempt to win over suspicious receivers. Van Swol dubbed this "the Pinocchio effect." "Just like Pinocchio's nose, the number of words grew along with the lie," she says.
• Allocators who engaged in deception by omission, on the other hand, used fewer words and shorter sentences than truth tellers.

Among the findings related to nonstrategic cues:

• On average, liars used more swear words than did truth tellers—especially in cases where the recipients voiced suspicion about the true amount of the endowment. "We think this may be due to the fact that it takes a lot of cognitive energy to lie," Van Swol says. "Using so much of your brain to lie may make it hard to monitor yourself in other areas."
• Liars used far more third-person pronouns than truth tellers or omitters. "This is a way of distancing themselves from and avoiding ownership of the lie," Van Swol explains.
• Liars spoke in more complex sentences than either omitters or truth tellers.

The researchers also examined when and whether the receivers trusted the allocators—noting instances when receivers voiced doubts about the allocators' statements, and correlating the various linguistic cues with the accuracy of the receivers' suspicions. They also noted instances in which receivers showed no suspicion toward deceivers.

On average, receivers tended to trust the bald-faced liars far more than they trusted the allocators who tried to deceive by omission. In short, relative silence garnered more suspicion than flat-out falsehoods. "It turns out that omission may be a terrible deception strategy," Van Swol says. "In terms of succeeding at the deception, it was more effective to outright lie. It's a more Machiavellian strategy, but it's more successful."

POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS

In the latest phase of their research, the team is investigating the linguistic differences between lying in person and lying via email. Results regarding the latter may be increasingly useful as a larger portion of business is now being conducted via email, and such communications leave a transcript that can be analyzed carefully—and at leisure—by suspicious counterparts. "People detect lies better over the computer than they do face-to-face," Van Swol says.

That said, the researchers are quick to emphasize that linguistic cues are most definitely not a foolproof method of detecting lies, even among those who are trained to look out for them.

"This is early stage research," Malhotra says. "As with any such work, it would be a mistake to take the findings as gospel and apply them too strictly. Rather, the factors we find to be associated with lies and deception are perhaps most useful as warning signs that should simply prompt greater vigilance and further investigation regarding the veracity of the people with whom we are dealing."

—To learn more about how to deal with liars during business negotiations, read Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond by Deepak Malhotra and Max H. Bazerman. Follow Malhotra on Twitter at @Prof_Malhotra. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Carmen Nobel is senior editor of Harvard Business School Working Knowledge.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7234.html

COMMENTS

• • ELLEN NAYLOR
   
  • PRESIDENT, THE BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE SOURCE
  This is interesting research to observe when people are lying to you in all forms of communication. I have been interviewing people for over 20 years. If you probe more deeply when you suspect they're lying, Pinocchio's nose gets longer if they are, since it's usually hard to keep lying. People also lie when they're trying to help you or because they're too embarrassed to say they don't know for fear they'll look uninformed. The same thing happens in written communication: it's just human nature.
   
   
   
• • IVAN BLANCO
   
  • LEGAL ADVISER, I.C.E. - COSTA RICA
  The verbal elloquence that liars portray reminds me of the Bible (book of Proverbs, Chapter 10 verse 19, KJV) which states: "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.". With regard to the opposite (ibidem, Chapter 17 verse 28, KJV), it also states: "Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.". It`s indeed appealing to see yet another example of scientific work pointing towards confirmation of the words of the Bible, which undoubtely should be read and studied more by wisdom-seeking negotiators.
   
   
   
• • ROS
   
  • ENGINEER, CITY
  Stated a long time ago: "Me thinks thou dost protest too much!"
   
   
   
• • MARK WILSON
   
  • PRINCIPAL, M. H. WILSON & ASSOCIATES
  Excellent study. Certainly look forward as more results come to to light. It would also be interesting to address continued research in political responses instead of only business conversations.
   
   
   
• • CHARLES A. QUARCOO
   
  • EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ELCS
  I agree with your write up and want to indicate the liars continue to lie to protect the lies that they want others to believe. We must be extra careful when dealing with people when we suspect they are liars.
   
   
   
• • ANONYMOUS
   
  I think there's an interesting correlation with the advice a mentor gave me when I was giving briefings to our government contract monitors. His advice was to first answer the question (perhaps even just a simple yes/no or number) and then, if needed (by the reaction of the questioner), launch into the explanation. Aside from saving time, this approach helps you avoid looking like you are trying to hide something.
  You know when a politician is being less than candid when, after a simple yes/no question has been asked, they don't start their response with either "yes" or "no", as in Q: "Do you support the XYZ bill?" A: "The problem of [insert issue here] is wide spread. I've worked tirelessly...."
   
   
   
• • IAN WELSH
   
  • WRITER/EDITOR
  Interesting. It's worth remembering you need the baseline: research has shown, for example, that people who swear habitually (as opposed to swearing more) are more honest.
   
   
   
• • MARK CALONICO
   
  • DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
  And I think of my days as a school principal investigating various situations, especially with the omitters. Many of my colleagues would find this interesting research to keep in the back of their minds when dealing with students, parents, and other staff.
   
   
   
• • YIGA BENON
   
  • TOWN CLERK /CITY MANAGER, IGANGA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL UGANDA
  Am so grateful that i have also read this nice and educative article. It just happened to me this week on monday during the weekly management meeting. Profanity was evident in one of the members of the senior management team who we suspected of causing us trouble. Now i know though requires diligence to notice it.
   
   
   
• • JAMES POLICHAK
   
  • ATTORNEY AND COGNITIVE SCIENTIST, PRIVATE PRACTICE
  It is very important to put this research into its proper context.
  There has been several decades of research into deception detection, and virtually no evidence that any particular group - even those who specialize in questioning people, such as the police, FBI, and other law enforcement officials - can reliably detect deception when the full range of outcomes is analyzed. Same with professionals such as judges or doctors.
  What this means is that there is a high rate of false positives - thinking someone is lying when they are not - and a high rate of false negatives - failure to detect a liar - in addition to successful identifications of liars and truth-tellers. When all possibilities are considered, performance is almost always no better than random chance (I think that there was evidence that trained and experienced CIA operatives performed better than chance).
  On the other hand, many people think that they can spot a liar, and are highly confident in their false belief.
  The present study does not change this. It provides correlates of lying vs truth-telling in a particular situation. This situation is low-stakes and of low resemblance to real world situations, where deceivers often have the advantage of preparing themselves to be deceptive and know who they will be attempting to deceive.
  There is also a conflict between the research findings and real-world business negotiations.
  In real-world negotiations, the negotiators are more likely to be representing organizations than merely themselves. Use of third-person pronouns would be expected to increase as the organization may be referred to as "they" or "it".
  And complex negotiations naturally lend themselves to complex sentence structures. Those who are experienced negotiators also likely have their use of profanity under control. Or they may use it as a negotiation tool.
  Omissions would also be expected, as no one is going to come right out and say "this is the minimum acceptable to my client" as that would result in the client getting the minimum. Similarly, it is common to say things like "my client can't accept that offer" when the offer may be accepted if it is the only way to make a deal.
  As one of the other commenters said, it is important to remember the baseline. That baseline is that people think that they are better at detecting deception than they really are.
  People remember the positive examples, such as when they suspect deception and engage in further probing questions to reveal the deception. They tend to not think of the false positives, when they engaged in further questioning and decided that someone was not a liar. And even here, they might be wrong - the liar may have successfully responded to the additional questioning. In this case, false confidence may be strengthened - this person can't be lying because I have probed them, and they showed no sign of deception.
  They cannot know when they experienced a false negative - when a liar was so successful that they never suspected deception at all.
  They also may not be able to determine if they had a false positive, believing someone to be a liar when they are not, as this would require evidence beyond the interrogation to verify that the person was deceptive. In a law enforcement situation, evidence may exist. In a business negotiation, it may be impossible to obtain evidence of deception. Or it may only be possible to decide someone was deceptive after a deal has been made, perhaps long after a deal was made.
   
   
   
• • JAMES POLICHAK
   
  • ATTORNEY AND COGNITIVE SCIENTIST, PRIVATE PRACTICE
  It's also rather amusing that along with this article, one of the most popular articles is "Power Posing: Faking It Until You Make It".
  Highly popular even though it was published in 2010, this article provides instructions on how to use body language as a means of influencing others to accept one's desires, whether deserved or not.
  As this article reports, "People often are more influenced by how they feel about you than by what you're saying. It's not about the content of the message, but how you're communicating it."
  And that is how you improve your chances to cause a false negative result regarding your deception.