IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v25y2016i3d10.1007_s10726-015-9455-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Justifications Offered, Questions Asked, and Linguistic Patterns in Deceptive and Truthful Monetary Interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Michael T. Braun

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

  • Lyn M. Swol

    (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Abstract

In this study, we investigate verbal production in people playing a monetary negotiation game who freely chose to lie or tell the truth. Participants were randomly assigned to the role of allocator or recipient; the allocator divided a small amount of money and was tasked with convincing the recipient to accept their share. Allocators were free to lie, and 30 % did. Our goal is to investigate the use of justifications, questions, and linguistics to assess if these factors differ between those telling the truth, lying by omission, and lying by commission. We find that liars were more likely to use some types of justifications, while truth-tellers were more likely to assert that their offer was fair. Recipient questions were unrelated to successful detection of deception, and linguistic patterns were largely non-significant, with the exception of liars using more negations. We also find no connection between emotions felt by allocators (more guilt for liars) and linguistic patterns, replicating past results. We discuss how these results mesh with past findings, offer discussion about what this means for the field, and consider where research on linguistic differences between liars and truth-tellers should go next.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael T. Braun & Lyn M. Swol, 2016. "Justifications Offered, Questions Asked, and Linguistic Patterns in Deceptive and Truthful Monetary Interactions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 641-661, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9455-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9455-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-015-9455-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-015-9455-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David F. Larcker & Anastasia A. Zakolyukina, 2012. "Detecting Deceptive Discussions in Conference Calls," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 495-540, May.
    2. Boles, Terry L. & Croson, Rachel T. A. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2000. "Deception and Retribution in Repeated Ultimatum Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 235-259, November.
    3. Daniel Balliet, 2010. "Communication and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analytic Review," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(1), pages 39-57, February.
    4. Huck, Steffen, 1999. "Responder behavior in ultimatum offer games with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 183-206, April.
    5. Lina Zhou & Judee K. Burgoon & Jay F. Nunamaker & Doug Twitchell, 2004. "Automating Linguistics-Based Cues for Detecting Deception in Text-Based Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communications," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 81-106, January.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:632-638 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Straub, Paul G. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1995. "An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 345-364, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jihyun Esther Paik & Lyn M. Swol, 2017. "Justifications and Questions in Detecting Deception," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(6), pages 1041-1060, November.
    2. Divinus Oppong-Tawiah & Jane Webster, 2023. "Corporate Sustainability Communication as ‘Fake News’: Firms’ Greenwashing on Twitter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-26, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eva I. Hoppe & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2013. "Contracting under Incomplete Information and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1516-1544.
    2. Herz, Holger & Schmutzler, Armin & Volk, André, 2019. "Cooperation and mistrust in relational contracts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 366-380.
    3. Hoppe, Eva I. & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2015. "Do sellers offer menus of contracts to separate buyer types? An experimental test of adverse selection theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 17-33.
    4. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi & Ivan Soraperra, 2014. "An ultimatum game with multidimensional response strategies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-018, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    5. Bo Xianyu, 2010. "Social Preference, Incomplete Information, and the Evolution of Ultimatum Game in the Small World Networks: An Agent-Based Approach," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 13(2), pages 1-7.
    6. Besancenot, Damien & Dubart, Delphine & Vranceanu, Radu, 2013. "The value of lies in an ultimatum game with imperfect information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 239-247.
    7. Alexia Gaudeul, 2013. "Social preferences under uncertainty," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    8. Nikiforakis, Nikos & Oechssler, Jörg & Shah, Anwar, 2014. "Hierarchy, coercion, and exploitation: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 155-168.
    9. Ferreira, Mark, 2017. "When knowledge is not power: Asymmetric information, probabilistic deceit detection and threats in ultimatum bargainingAuthor-Name: Chavanne, David," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 4-17.
    10. Song, Fei & Zhong, Chen-Bo, 2015. "You scratch his back, he scratches mine and I’ll scratch yours: Deception in simultaneous cyclic networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-111.
    11. Pamela Schmitt, 2004. "On Perceptions of Fairness: The Role of Valuations, Outside Options, and Information in Ultimatum Bargaining Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 49-73, February.
    12. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    13. Croson, Rachel & Boles, Terry & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2003. "Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 143-159, June.
    14. Haimanti Bhattacharya & Subhasish Dugar, 2020. "The Hidden Cost Of Bargaining: Evidence From A Cheating‐Prone Marketplace," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(3), pages 1253-1280, August.
    15. Jihyun Esther Paik & Lyn M. Swol, 2017. "Justifications and Questions in Detecting Deception," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(6), pages 1041-1060, November.
    16. Damien Besancenot & Delphine Dubart & Radu Vranceanu, 2012. "The value of lies in an ultimatum game with imperfect information," CEPN Working Papers hal-00692139, HAL.
    17. Fang Zhong & Steven O. Kimbrough & D.J. Wu, 2002. "Cooperative Agent Systems: Artificial Agents Play the Ultimatum Game," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(6), pages 433-447, November.
    18. Russell Craig & Tony Mortensen & Shefali Iyer, 2013. "Exploring Top Management Language for Signals of Possible Deception: The Words of Satyam’s Chair Ramalinga Raju," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 333-347, March.
    19. Koning, Lukas & Steinel, Wolfgang & Beest, Ilja van & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 35-42, May.
    20. repec:hal:journl:hal-00692139 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9455-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.