LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Carter, Elisabeth (2014)
Publisher: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Using UK police interviews as data, this empirical work seeks to explore and explain the interactional phenomena that accompany, distinguish, and are drawn upon by suspects in performing deceptive talk.\ud It explores the effects of the myriad and often conflicting interactional requirements of turntaking, preference organisation and conversational maxims on the suspect’s talk, alongside the practical interactional choices of a suspect attempting to avoid revealing his guilt.\ud This paper reveals a close link between the officer’s and suspect’s interaction and the patterned organisation of an assortment of divergent utterances produced in response to probing questions that follow a lie.\ud The findings expose a hierarchical interactional order that explains the diverse and conflicting accounts of cues to deception in this field, suggesting that interactional phenomena are systematically enlisted in the orientating to, and the violation of interactional organisation which enables the suspect to produce utterances that protect his position, and can also be directed towards the performance of wider objectives such as reinforcing a claim of innocence or supporting a version of events.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Anolli, L., Balconi, M. and Ciceri, R. (2002) 'Linguistic styles in deceptive communication: dubitative ambiguity and elliptic eluding in packaged lies' Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 31(7).
    • Carter, E. (2008) Policing talk: An investigation into the interaction of the officer and the suspect in the police interview. PhD: University of Essex.
    • Carter, E. (2013) Analysing police interviews: Laughter, Confessions and the Tape. London: Continuum.
    • Battista, P. (2009) 'Deceivers' responses to challenges of their truthfulness: Differences between familiar and unfamiliar lies'. Communication Quarterly 45(4): 319-334.
    • Buller, D. B. and Burghoon, J. K. (1996) 'Interpersonal Deception Theory' Communication Theory 6: 203-242.
    • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsey, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charton, K. and Cooper, H. (2003) 'Cues to Deception' Psychological Bulletin 129(1): 74-118.
    • Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Duran, N. D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M. and McNamara, D. S. (2010) 'The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies'. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(03): 439-462.
    • Ekman, P. Sullivan, M. Friesen, W. and Scherer, K. (1991) 'Face, voice and body in detecting deception'. Journal of Non-verbal Behaviour 15(2):125-135.
    • Frank, M. G. and Feeley, T. H. (2003) 'To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training'. Journal of Applied Communication Research 31: 58-75.
    • Hall, M. and Watts, C. (2011), 'A multi-dimensional evaluation of vocal deception'. Symposium poster presentation. James Madison University Institute for Infrastructure and Information Assurance. Available from: www.jmu.edu.iiia/wm_library/A_Multidimensional_Evaluation_of_Vocal_Deception.pdf (last accessed 04/03/14).
    • Hancock, T., J., Curry, L. E., Gootha, S. and Woodworth, M. T. (2005) 'Lies in conversation: An examination of deception using automated linguistic analysis'. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article