바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.25 No.2

Citation Share

Linguistic and Psychological Characteristics of Deceptive Statement in Korean

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2011, v.25 no.2, pp.91-111
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.2.005




& (2011). Linguistic and Psychological Characteristics of Deceptive Statement in Korean. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 25(2), 91-111, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.2.005

Abstract

This study was conducted to demonstrate linguistic and psychological characteristics in deceptive statements written in Korean by comparing true statement with deceptive one that was written to minimize one's own responsibility for assault experience. For this aim, 112 university students participated in the study. First, the students wrote down true statement about one's own assault experience, and a week later, they wrote down deceptive statement. When they wrote down deceptive statement, they imagined a situation where their assault experience was made public and they wanted to avoid liability or blame from their acquaintances. Sixty three paired statements were analyzed with K-LIWC program. Then, the results demonstrated linguistic and psychological characteristics when people lie to minimize responsibility for their own assault experience. In addition, summative content analysis was conducted in order to figure out linguistic and psychological characteristics in deceptive statements. The findings of this study suggest that most linguistic variables and psychological variables are increased in prologue and conclusion of the deceptive statements by adding sentences to avoid one's responsibilities. In conclusion, importance and limitations of the study and directions for future research were discussed.

keywords
한국어 진술서, 책임회피, 거짓특징, 거짓 언어심리, Korean statement, Deceptive statement, Psychological characteristics, Linguistic characteristics.

Reference

1.

강경준(2004). (글로벌)세계대백과사전 1. 언어Ⅰ·한국문학 ·논술. 서울: 범한.

2.

국립국어연구원(2005). 외국인을 위한 한국어 문법1.서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.

3.

김수연(2005). 우울한 기분에 대한 반응양식과 에세이작성 처치가 우울 변화에 미치는 영향. 한림대학교대학원 석사논문.

4.

김순임(1988). 국어 접두사의 연구. 고려대학교 교육대학원 석사논문.

5.

김시업, 김기민(2010). 과학적 내용분석(SCAN)의 타당성: SCAN의 준거가 진술서 내 거짓 구역을 탐지하는 정확성을 근거로. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및성격. 24(2). 203-220.

6.

김정우(1993). 번역문에 나타난 국어의 모습. 국립국어연구원: 국어문화학교. 37-54.

7.

김종률(2002). 수사심리학. 서울: 학지사.

8.

김종률(2010). 진술분석. 서울: 학지사.

9.

박경희(2006). 외상경험글쓰기의 치료적 효과와 기제:가정폭력피해여성을 중심으로. 서울대 대학원 박사논문.

10.

박진희(2009). 상담자원봉사자의 자살관련 사고 및 태도의 특징. 고려대학교 교육대학원 석사논문.

11.

이은숙(2005). 글쓰기를 통한 자기개방이 신체화 및 심리적 안녕감에 미치는 효과: 정서인식, 정서표현,정서표현 모호성을 중재변인으로. 부산대학교 대학원 석사논문.

12.

이재웅(2007). 목격자 진술에 대한 SCAN(ScientificContent Analysis) 기법의 타당도 연구. 한림대학교 대학원 석사 논문.

13.

이정화(2007). K-LIWC 글분석 프로그램을 이용한 상담자-내담자 언어 분석. Journal of the KoreanData Analysis Society, 9(5), 2545-2567.

14.

이정화 (2009). K-LIWC을 활용한 상담 프로토콜의 언어분석. 부산대학교 대학원 석사논문.

15.

이창환, 윤애선(2004). 한국어 분석 프로그램(K-LIWC)의 한국어적 특성, 한국인지과학회 춘계학술대회[지능의 이해와 응용], 한국인지과학회, 118-125.

16.

조명한 외 공저(2003). 언어심리학. 서울: 학지사.

17.

한재영(2008). 한국어 문법교육. 파주: 태학사.

18.

Adams, S. (1996). Statement analysis: What dosuspects' words really reveal? FBI LAWEnforcement Bulletin, October, 12-20.

19.

Adams, S. (2002). Communication under stress:Indicators of veracity and deception in writtenn arratives. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

20.

Adams, S. & Jarvis, J. P. (2004). Are you telling methe truth? Indicators of veracity in writtenstatements. FBI LAW Enforcement Bulletin,October, 7-12.

21.

Adams, S. & Jarvis, J. P. (2006). Indicators ofveracity and deception: an analysis of writtenstatements made to police. Speech, Languageand the Law, 13(1), 1-22.

22.

Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J.(1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park,California: Sage.

23.

Driscoll, L. N. (1994). A Validity assessment ofwritten statements from suspects in criminalinvestigations using the scan technique. PoliceStudies, 17(4), 77-88.

24.

Ekman, P. (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit inthe marketplace, politics and marriage. NewYork: W. W. Norton.

25.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self ineveryday life. London: Penguin.

26.

Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. (1995). Information-pacedparsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka, & N. Nagai(Eds.), Japanese sentence processing(pp. 9-63).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

27.

Jayne, B. C., & Buckly, J. P. (1999). TheInvestigative anthology. John E, Reid andAssociates Inc.

28.

Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974).An exploration of deception as a communicationconstruct. Human Communication Research, 1,15-29.

29.

Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., &Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: predictingdeception from linguistic styles. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.

30.

Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguisticstyles: language use as an individual difference.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 1296-1312.

31.

Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J.(2001). Linguistic Inquiry and WordCount(LIWC): LIWC. Computerized TextAnalysis Program. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

32.

Pennebaker, J. W., Graybeal, A. (2001). Patterns ofnatural language use: disclosure, personality, andsocial intergration. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 10, 90-93.

33.

Rabon, D. (1996). Investigative discourse analysis.Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press.

34.

Rudacille, W. C. (1994). Identifying lies in disguise.Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt.

35.

Rude, S. S., Gortner, E.M., & Pennebaker, J. W.(2004). Language use of depressed anddepression-vulnerable college students. Cognitionand Emotion. 18(8), 1121-1133.

36.

Sapir, A. (1987). Scientific Content Analysis(SCAN).Phoenix, Arizona: Laboratory of Scientific interrogation.

37.

Sapir, A. (2000). The L.S.I course on scientificcontent analysis: Workshop book. Phoenix,Arizona: Laboratory of Scientific Interrogation.

38.

Smith, N. (2001). Reading between the lines: Anevaluation of the scientific content analysistechnique(SCAN). Police Research Series Paper135.

39.

Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and its implications forprofessional practice, John Wiley and Sons,Chichester.

40.

Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R.(2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbaland nonverbal behavior. Journal of NonverbalBehavior, 24(4), 239-263.

41.

Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liarsand how they can improve, Legal and CriminalPsychology, 9, 159–181.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy