13 May 2013 Research & Ideas

How to Spot a Liar

Key linguistic cues can help revealdishonesty during businessnegotiations, whether it's aflat-out lie or a deliberateomission of key information,according to research by Lyn M.Van Swol, Michael T. Braun, andDeepak Malhotra.

by Carmen Nobel

Want to know if someone's lying toyou? Telltale signs may includerunning of the mouth, an excessiveuse of third-person pronouns, andan increase in profanity.

These are among the findings of arecent experimental study thatdelves into the language ofdeception, detailed in the paperEvidence for the Pinocchio Effect:Linguistic Differences BetweenLies, Deception by Omissions, andTruths, which was published in thejournal Discourse Processes.Asked why the topic of deceptionis important to business research,negotiation expert DeepakMalhotra responds wryly: "As itturns out, some people will lie andcheat in business!"

Malhotra, the Eli GoldstonProfessor of Business

Administration at HarvardBusiness School, coauthored thepaper with Associate Professor LynM. Van Swol and doctoralcandidate Michael T. Braun, bothfrom the University ofWisconsin—Madison. "Mostpeople admit to having lied innegotiations, and everyone believesthey've been lied to in thesecontexts," Malhotra says. "We maybe able to improve the situation ifwe can equip people to detect anddeter the unethical behavior ofothers."

"Just like Pinocchio'snose, the number of wordsgrew along with the lie"

"Evidence for the PinocchioEffect" fills a key gap in the fieldof deception research, says VanSwol, the study's lead author.Previous studies have examined thelinguistic differences between liesand truthful statements. But thisone goes a step further to considerthe differences between flat-outlying and so-called deception byomission—that is, the willfulavoidance of divulging importantinformation, either by changing thesubject or by saying as little aspossible.

The ultimatum game

To garner a sample of truth tellers,liars, and deceivers by omission,the researchers recruited 104participants to play the ultimatumgame, a popular tool amongexperimental economists. In thetraditional version of the game, oneplayer (the allocator) receives asum of money and proposes how todivvy it up with a partner (thereceiver). The receiver has theoption of either accepting theproposed split or refusing theallocator's proposal—in which caseneither player gets any of themoney. Because receivers willoften reject offers they perceive asunfair, leaving both parties withnothing, it behooves the allocatorto offer an amount that will bedeemed fair by the receiver. Inmany instances, allocators chooseto share half, Malhotra says.

For the purposes of the deceptionexperiment, the rules of theultimatum game differed from thetraditional version in three ways.First, in this version, the allocatorreceived an endowment of either$30 or $5 to share with thereceiver. The receiver had no wayof verifying how much money theallocator had been given,information which the allocatorwas not required to divulge. Hence,an allocator could conceivably givethe receiver $2 and keep $28, andthe receiver would be none the

COPYRIGHT 2013 PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 1

wiser, perhaps assuming only $5was in play. The second changewas that if the receiver rejected theallocator's offer he or she wouldreceive a default amount of $7.50(or $1.25)—whereas the allocatorwould get no money at all.

Finally, each game included twominutes of videotaped conversationin which the receiver could grill theallocator with questions, prior todeciding whether to accept orreject the offer. This providedample opportunity for the allocatorto tell the truth about the money,lie, or try to avoid the subjectaltogether. "We wanted to create asituation where people couldchoose to lie or not lie, and itwould happen naturally," VanSwol says.

Ultimately, the receiver had todecide whether the proposedallocation was fair and honest,based only on a conversation withthe allocator. Thus, it behooved theallocator to be either a fair personor a good liar.

As it turned out, 70 percent of theallocators were honest, telling thereceivers the true amount of theendowment and/or offering them atleast half of the pot. The remaining30 percent of allocators wereclassified either as liars (meaningthey flat-out lied about the amountof the endowment) or as deceiversby omission (meaning they evadedquestions about the amount of theendowment, but ultimately offeredthe receiver less than half).

After a graduate studenttranscribed all theallocator/receiver conversations,the researchers carefully analyzedthe linguistic content, comparing

the truth tellers against the liars anddeceivers in order to suss out cuesfor deception. They looked for bothstrategic and nonstrategic languagecues.

"A strategic cue is a consciousstrategy to reduce the likelihood ofthe deception being detected," VanSwol explains, "whereas anonstrategic cue is an emotionalresponse, and people aren't usuallyaware that they're doing it."

Key findings: word count,profanity, and pronouns

In terms of strategic cues, theresearchers discovered thefollowing:

• Bald-faced liars tended touse many more wordsduring the ultimatum gamethan did truth tellers,presumably in an attemptto win over suspiciousreceivers. Van Swoldubbed this "the Pinocchioeffect." "Just likePinocchio's nose, thenumber of words grewalong with the lie," shesays.

• Allocators who engaged indeception by omission, onthe other hand, used fewerwords and shortersentences than truth tellers.

Among the findings related tononstrategic cues:

• On average, liars usedmore swear words than didtruth tellers—especially incases where the recipientsvoiced suspicion about thetrue amount of theendowment. "We thinkthis may be due to the fact

that it takes a lot ofcognitive energy to lie,"Van Swol says. "Using somuch of your brain to liemay make it hard tomonitor yourself in otherareas."

• Liars used far morethird-person pronouns thantruth tellers or omitters."This is a way ofdistancing themselvesfrom and avoidingownership of the lie," VanSwol explains.

• Liars spoke in morecomplex sentences thaneither omitters or truthtellers.

The researchers also examinedwhen and whether the receiverstrusted the allocators—notinginstances when receivers voiceddoubts about the allocators'statements, and correlating thevarious linguistic cues with theaccuracy of the receivers'suspicions. They also notedinstances in which receiversshowed no suspicion towarddeceivers.

On average, receivers tended totrust the bald-faced liars far morethan they trusted the allocators whotried to deceive by omission. Inshort, relative silence garneredmore suspicion than flat-outfalsehoods. "It turns out thatomission may be a terribledeception strategy," Van Swolsays. "In terms of succeeding at thedeception, it was more effective tooutright lie. It's a moreMachiavellian strategy, but it'smore successful."

Possible applications

In the latest phase of their research,

HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL | WORKING KNOWLEDGE | HBSWK.HBS.EDU

COPYRIGHT 2013 PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 2

the team is investigating thelinguistic differences betweenlying in person and lying via email.Results regarding the latter may beincreasingly useful as a largerportion of business is now beingconducted via email, and suchcommunications leave a transcriptthat can be analyzedcarefully—and at leisure—bysuspicious counterparts. "Peopledetect lies better over the computerthan they do face-to-face," VanSwol says.

That said, the researchers are quickto emphasize that linguistic cuesare most definitely not a foolproof

method of detecting lies, evenamong those who are trained tolook out for them.

"This is early stage research,"Malhotra says. "As with any suchwork, it would be a mistake to takethe findings as gospel and applythem too strictly. Rather, thefactors we find to be associatedwith lies and deception are perhapsmost useful as warning signs thatshould simply prompt greatervigilance and further investigationregarding the veracity of the peoplewith whom we are dealing."

—To learn more about how to

deal with liars during businessnegotiations, read NegotiationGenius: How to OvercomeObstacles and Achieve BrilliantResults at the Bargaining Tableand Beyond by Deepak Malhotraand Max H. Bazerman. FollowMalhotra on Twitter at@Prof_Malhotra.

About the author

Carmen Nobel is senior editor ofHarvard Business School WorkingKnowledge.

HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL | WORKING KNOWLEDGE | HBSWK.HBS.EDU

COPYRIGHT 2013 PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 3