Read the following passage and then give short answers to the following five
questions. Most of us tell one two lies a day, according to
scientists who study these things. And we rarely get caught, because the lies we
tell are usually little ones: "I got stuck in traffic." "That color looks good
no you." "I was just about to call."
But even the smallest fib may soon be systematically exposed,
at least in the virtual World. Researchers at several universities are
developing software that can detect lies in online communications such as
instant messages e-mails and chatrooms. The ability to spot "digital deception",
as researchers call it, has never been more crucial. Today, much of our business
and social life is conducted online, making us increasingly vulnerable. White
collar criminals, sexual predators, scammers, identity thieves and even
terrorists surf the same Web as the rest of us.
Conventional lie
detectors look for physiological signs of anxiety--a bead of sweat or a racing
pulse--but online systems examine only the liar’s words. "When we’re looking at
Ianguage, we’re looking at the tool of the lie," says Jeff Hancock, all
assistant professor of communication and a member of the faculty of computing
and information science at Cornell University.
Hancock, who
recently received a $ 680, 000 grant from the National Science Foundation to
study digital deception, says there is a growing body of evidence that the
language of dishonest messages is different than that of honest ones. For
example, one study led by Hancock and due to be published this spring in
Discourse Processes found the deceptive e-mail messages contained 28 percent
more words on average and used a higher percentage of words associated with
negative emotions than did truthful messages. Liars also tend to use fewer
first-person references (such as the pronoun "I") and more third-person
references (such as "he" and "they"). This may be the liar’s subconscious way of
distancing himself from his lie.
More surprising, Hancock and
his colleagues have observed that the targets of liars also exhibit distinctive
language patterns. For instance, people who are being deceived often use shorter
sentences and ask more questions. Even though they may not be aware that they
are being lide to, people seem to exhibit subconscious suspicions.
To identify the patterns of deceit, Hancock has developed an
instant-messaging system at Cornell that asks users to rate the deceptiveness of
each message they send. The system has already collected 10, 000 messages, of
which about 6 percent qualify as patently deceptive. Eventually the results will
be incorporated into software that analyzes incoming messages.
For now, the Cornell researchers are working only with the kinds of lies
told be students and faculty. It remains to be seen whether such a system can be
scaled up to handle "big" lies, such as messages sent by con artists and
terrorists.
Fortunately, the research so far suggests that
people lie less often in e-mail than face-to-face or on the phone. Perhaps this
is because people are reluctant to put their lies in writing, Hancock
speculates. "An email generates multiple copies," he says. "It will last longer
than something carved in rock." So choose your words carefully. The internet may
soon be rid not only deceit but also of lame excuses.