Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

People who lie via instant messaging take longer to respond with shorter-than-usual replies, according to a new study that found liars also make more edits as they type – mostly deletions and backspacing.

The distanced nature of most digital conversations, whether texting or chatting on social media, may encourage deception, the researchers suggest.

"It feels a little bit more removed, a little bit easier to do that," said Tom Meservy, study co-author and a professor of information systems at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

Story continues below advertisement

The researchers created a customized "chatbot" that asked 108 students from two large U.S. universities 30 questions each. These were designed to reflect six styles of deception including "fiction," "masks" and "playing," and ranged from, "Describe in detail how you spent your last vacation," to "What do you think should be done about global warming?"

The students were told to lie in half of their responses. They were told only as the questions rolled out, mimicking "spontaneous deception" or lying on the spot, the way we fib in most of our face-to-face interactions and tech-mediated conversations.

The researchers examined not only the replies but also the typing behaviour: "It's not just what you say, it's how you say it," Meservy said.

While lying in person generally has people sputtering more information than they should, liars often trimmed their verbiage when sending messages: Dishonest responses were composed of fewer words than truthful ones. The researchers also found messages replete with lies were crafted more carefully than honest ones, and took 10 per cent longer to write. "There's cognitive effort in crafting this lie," Meservy said.

A 2012 study out of Cornell University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that people who fudged their online dating profiles avoided the pronoun "I" to distance themselves from their lies. They also wrote shorter bios – the less written, the fewer lies to keep track of. (A ruse told online means there's an electronic trail.)

Still, texting and instant messages can be more efficient than calling, and little white lies can be more efficient at times than the truth. "Computer-mediated chat is a very fertile ground for deception," the study notes. Researchers have found that people can accurately detect lies only 54 per cent of the time, a skill that deteriorates when there's no facial expression or voice to scrutinize.

With the current study, "We are identifying signs given off by individuals that aren't easily tracked by humans," Meservy said. He sees implications from the research for airport security, border crossings and online applications for jobs, visas and social assistance, but not so much for cheating spouses: "We're not out to ruin relationships." The study, he says, is about raising red flags, not a "blanket determination of truth versus deceit."

Story continues below advertisement

Meservy stresses that there is no single cue to deception, nor should anyone presume that a longer waiting time for a text means the texter is duplicitous: They're probably just multitasking. "That's the state of our world."

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies