Language of lies in prison: linguistic classification of prisoners' truthful and deceptive natural language

By G. D. Bond, Adrienne Y. Lee. 2005

208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/36ae61fcec08f9bf25b1673734d5cdae3fd4a32b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The Limitations of Stylometry for Detecting Machine-Generated Fake News (2019, background): “The success of these studies is mostly attributed to stylistic changes in human language when lying or deceiving (Bond and Lee 2005; Frank, Menasco, and O’Sullivan 2008).”
The truth about lies: What works in detecting high‐stakes deception? (2010, result): “While these findings were derived from nonforensic samples, Bond and Lee (2005) obtained similar results in analyzing the statements of incarcerated offenders telling lies about a video they had recently watched (still low-stakes deception).”
What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles (2012, background): “…distancing have now been observed in a wide range of contexts, including deceptive statements by students (Newman et al., 2003), by prisoners (Bond & Lee, 2005), and in synchronous (Hancock et al., 2008) and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (Keila & Skillicorn, 2005; Zhou et al.,…”
On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication (2007, methodology): “More recently, automated linguistic techniques in which computer programs are used to analyze the linguistic properties of texts have been used to examine the linguistic profiles of deceptive language (e.g., Bond & Lee, 2005; Newman,”
Automatic Detection of Fake News (2017, methodology): “Previous work on verbal deception detection showed that LIWC is a valuable tool for the deception detection in various contexts (e.g., genuine and fake hotel reviews, (Ott et al., 2011b, 2013); prisoners’ lies (Bond and Lee, 2005)).”
Combating Fake News (2019, background): “The third cue set was a comprehensive set of 31 cues created by including the first two cue sets along with additional Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count–(LIWC) [80] based cues utilized by previous studies [10, 74] and included lexical diversity, modal verbs, passive verbs, emotiveness, exclusive ter”
Modelling users' trust in online health rumours: an experiment-based study in China (2021, background): “Previous findings indicate that fabricated messages tend to have lower specificity, such as relatively little temporal or spatial information (Bond and Lee, 2005; DePaulo et al., 2003; Watson and Ragsdale, 1981).”
The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods (2010, unknown): “More motion words and fewer third-person pro-nouns were also significant predictors of deception by prisoners instructed to lie or tell the truth about videos they had watched (Bond & Lee, 2005).”