Are You Lying to Me?: Using Nonverbal Cues to Detect Deception (original) (raw)
Related papers
Are you lying to me? Temporal cues for deception
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2010
This research investigated whether variations in speech rate and response latency provide cues for deception. Participants listened to a conversation between a male/ female couple containing responses to questions that not only varied in timing characteristics but also potential type of lie. Results revealed gender differences in the type of lie told that depended on speech timing characteristics.
Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1982
This study tested the hypothesis that judges who suspect deception would be less influenced by controllable channels (facial expresions) relative to "leaky" channels (voice and body) than judges who do not suspect deception. The Nonverbal Discrepancy Test, comprised of video (face or body) cues paired with audio cues, was administered to subjects with the information that the person shown in the test never lied, sometimes lied, or very often lied; in a fourth condition (control) there was no mention of deception. In some cases, the video and audio components of the discrepancy test depicted the same affect while in other cases they depicted different affects. Subjects who expected more deception were relatively less influenced by the facial component of the affectively discrepant video-audio pairings. These subjects were also less accurate at decoding affectively consistent videoaudio pairings, especially those involving facial cues. Finally, subjects who expected more deception became less accurate decoders of consistent video-audio pairings during the second half of the test but learned to recognize video-audio discrepancies better. The results suggest that suspicion of deception led subjects to discount facial cues. Results for the control group indicated that even in the absence of explicit information, discrepant messages create a suspicion of deception. Traditionally, research on lie detection has been identified with the question of whether the polygraph and other mechanical Preparation of this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.
IEEE transactions on cybernetics, 2015
Detecting deception in interpersonal dialog is challenging since deceivers take advantage of the give-and-take of interaction to adapt to any sign of skepticism in an interlocutor's verbal and nonverbal feedback. Human detection accuracy is poor, often with no better than chance performance. In this investigation, we consider whether automated methods can produce better results and if emphasizing the possible disruption in interactional synchrony can signal whether an interactant is truthful or deceptive. We propose a data-driven and unobtrusive framework using visual cues that consists of face tracking, head movement detection, facial expression recognition, and interactional synchrony estimation. Analysis were conducted on 242 video samples from an experiment in which deceivers and truth-tellers interacted with professional interviewers either face-to-face or through computer mediation. Results revealed that the framework is able to automatically track head movements and expre...
A Sequence Analysis of Nonverbal Behaviour and Deception
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology
The ability to correctly interpret nonverbal communication (NVC) is an important ability in everyday interactions, which may use NVC techniques to identify the concealment of information. In the present study, a novel approach was used to understand NVC. Behaviour sequence analysis identified specific sequences of behaviours that indicate psychological distress caused by deception. The study involved the analysis of 55 videos of real criminals and high-power individuals that were filmed fabricating statements, which were later exposed as being untruthful at the time of being filmed. In addition, 53 clips of criminals making truthful statements were also analysed as a contrast group. Results indicated clear differences between honest and deceptive responses, such as furrowing of eyebrows in the deceptive sequences occurring more often than honest statements. In addition, sequences of behaviours were shown in the present data set, which could indicate a new method for analysing NVC and detecting psychological distress caused by deception. The possible implications and applications for police and forensic investigation are also outlined.
Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection
2010
Summary The question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue.
The Viability of Using Rapid Judgments as a Method of Deception Detection
Communication Methods and Measures, 2017
Rapid Judgments (RJs) are assessments based on indirect verbal and nonverbal cues made on the basis of global judgments. Advantages of RJs, compared to other timeconsuming methods of deception detection, include the ability to make assessments quickly, not having to use expensive detection equipment, and only minimal training for coders. Vrij and colleagues [1] found through initial testing with novice observers that the viability of the RJs method in deception detection is promising. The purpose of this research was to test the RJs method with two additional datasets in order to verify the reliability of the coding method and the accuracy of the deception judgments made with minimally trained coders. Two hypotheses were proposed and only partially supported.
In T. R. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Deception, 2014
Nonverbal cues to deception refer to unique motor behaviors that occur when lying, but are absent or present to a lesser degree when truth-telling. Nonverbal cues also include vocal behaviors separate from the content of the speech, such as vocal pitch. It is thought these cues are connected to underlying the cognitive and emotional demands of deception and so unintentionally reveal a liar's true beliefs. These cues may also, or instead, reflect the strategies that liars employ in an attempt to appear convincing. Whether unwitting or strategic, these behaviors vary depending on characteristics of the situation and of the individual. Consideration will be given to each of these topics, exploring how the cognitive and emotional elements of deception elicit nonverbal cues to their deceit, the individual and situational differences that modulate the cues to deceit and the benefits of using nonverbal cues.
Actual and Perceived Cues to Deception: A Closer Look at Speech
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1982
Previous research has shown both that speech can reliably reveal whether or not deception is occurring and that perceivers are often strongly influenced by speech in their judgments about deceit. Nonetheless, there are relatively few studies of verbal cues to deceit. In the present study, we examined specific verbal and paralinguistic cues that might reveal when deception is occurring or that might be used by perceivers in their attempts to detect deception; also, we examined quantitatively the correspondence between actuEil cues to deception and perceived cues to deception. For the cues that we studied, the degree to which the cues actually were associated with deception corresponded significantly to the degree to which perceivers used those cues as signs of deceit. When senders pretended to like people they really disliked, their descriptions were less positive and more neutral than when they honestly described people they really did like. When feigning disliking, senders uttered more nonfluences than when expressing honest disliking. All of these cues were used by perceivers in their judgments of deceptiveness; in addition, perceivers judged as deceptive descriptions that were spoken slowly and contained many Um's and er's. Expressions of liking that contained many otherreferences, few self-references, and many nonspecific (undifferentiating) descriptors were also perceived to be deceptive. To facilitate the study of actual and perceived cues deception, and their correspondence, a heuristic model was proposed.