Which Spoken Language Markers Identify Deception in High-Stakes Settings? Evidence From Earnings Conference Calls

Judee K Burgoon, William J. Mayew, Justin Scott Giboney, Aaron C. Elkins, Kevin Moffitt, Bradley Dorn, Michael Byrd, Lee Spitzley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Quarterly conference calls where corporate executives discuss earnings that are later found to be misreported offer an excellent test bed for determining if automated linguistic and vocalic analysis tools can identify potentially fraudulent utterances in prepared versus unscripted remarks. Earnings conference calls from one company that restated their financial reports and were accused of making misleading statements were annotated as restatement-relevant (or not) and as prepared (presentation) or unprepared (Q&A) responses. We submitted more than 1,000 utterances to automated analysis to identify distinct linguistic and vocalic features that characterize various types of utterances. Restatement-related utterances differed significantly on many vocal and linguistic dimensions. These results support the value of language and vocal features in identifying potentially fraudulent utterances and suggest important interplay between utterances that are unscripted responses rather than rehearsed statements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)123-157
Number of pages35
JournalJournal of Language and Social Psychology
Volume35
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

spoken language
Deception
Linguistics
Language
linguistics
evidence
accused
language
Utterance
High-stakes
Spoken Language
Values

Keywords

  • deception
  • earnings calls
  • fraud
  • language
  • linguistic analysis
  • preparation
  • vocalics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Linguistics and Language
  • Social Psychology
  • Education
  • Anthropology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Language and Linguistics

Cite this

Which Spoken Language Markers Identify Deception in High-Stakes Settings? Evidence From Earnings Conference Calls. / Burgoon, Judee K; Mayew, William J.; Giboney, Justin Scott; Elkins, Aaron C.; Moffitt, Kevin; Dorn, Bradley; Byrd, Michael; Spitzley, Lee.

In: Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2, 01.03.2016, p. 123-157.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Burgoon, Judee K ; Mayew, William J. ; Giboney, Justin Scott ; Elkins, Aaron C. ; Moffitt, Kevin ; Dorn, Bradley ; Byrd, Michael ; Spitzley, Lee. / Which Spoken Language Markers Identify Deception in High-Stakes Settings? Evidence From Earnings Conference Calls. In: Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 2016 ; Vol. 35, No. 2. pp. 123-157.
@article{d4b085cc6c9748d3a5050d48a966523c,
title = "Which Spoken Language Markers Identify Deception in High-Stakes Settings? Evidence From Earnings Conference Calls",
abstract = "Quarterly conference calls where corporate executives discuss earnings that are later found to be misreported offer an excellent test bed for determining if automated linguistic and vocalic analysis tools can identify potentially fraudulent utterances in prepared versus unscripted remarks. Earnings conference calls from one company that restated their financial reports and were accused of making misleading statements were annotated as restatement-relevant (or not) and as prepared (presentation) or unprepared (Q&A) responses. We submitted more than 1,000 utterances to automated analysis to identify distinct linguistic and vocalic features that characterize various types of utterances. Restatement-related utterances differed significantly on many vocal and linguistic dimensions. These results support the value of language and vocal features in identifying potentially fraudulent utterances and suggest important interplay between utterances that are unscripted responses rather than rehearsed statements.",
keywords = "deception, earnings calls, fraud, language, linguistic analysis, preparation, vocalics",
author = "Burgoon, {Judee K} and Mayew, {William J.} and Giboney, {Justin Scott} and Elkins, {Aaron C.} and Kevin Moffitt and Bradley Dorn and Michael Byrd and Lee Spitzley",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0261927X15586792",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "123--157",
journal = "Journal of Language and Social Psychology",
issn = "0261-927X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which Spoken Language Markers Identify Deception in High-Stakes Settings? Evidence From Earnings Conference Calls

AU - Burgoon, Judee K

AU - Mayew, William J.

AU - Giboney, Justin Scott

AU - Elkins, Aaron C.

AU - Moffitt, Kevin

AU - Dorn, Bradley

AU - Byrd, Michael

AU - Spitzley, Lee

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Quarterly conference calls where corporate executives discuss earnings that are later found to be misreported offer an excellent test bed for determining if automated linguistic and vocalic analysis tools can identify potentially fraudulent utterances in prepared versus unscripted remarks. Earnings conference calls from one company that restated their financial reports and were accused of making misleading statements were annotated as restatement-relevant (or not) and as prepared (presentation) or unprepared (Q&A) responses. We submitted more than 1,000 utterances to automated analysis to identify distinct linguistic and vocalic features that characterize various types of utterances. Restatement-related utterances differed significantly on many vocal and linguistic dimensions. These results support the value of language and vocal features in identifying potentially fraudulent utterances and suggest important interplay between utterances that are unscripted responses rather than rehearsed statements.

AB - Quarterly conference calls where corporate executives discuss earnings that are later found to be misreported offer an excellent test bed for determining if automated linguistic and vocalic analysis tools can identify potentially fraudulent utterances in prepared versus unscripted remarks. Earnings conference calls from one company that restated their financial reports and were accused of making misleading statements were annotated as restatement-relevant (or not) and as prepared (presentation) or unprepared (Q&A) responses. We submitted more than 1,000 utterances to automated analysis to identify distinct linguistic and vocalic features that characterize various types of utterances. Restatement-related utterances differed significantly on many vocal and linguistic dimensions. These results support the value of language and vocal features in identifying potentially fraudulent utterances and suggest important interplay between utterances that are unscripted responses rather than rehearsed statements.

KW - deception

KW - earnings calls

KW - fraud

KW - language

KW - linguistic analysis

KW - preparation

KW - vocalics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958060824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958060824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0261927X15586792

DO - 10.1177/0261927X15586792

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 123

EP - 157

JO - Journal of Language and Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Language and Social Psychology

SN - 0261-927X

IS - 2

ER -