Nonverbal cues (original) (raw)

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.

Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1987

propose that deceivers attempt to encode strategically nonverbal cues which indicate nonimmediacy and project a positive image. At the same time, deceivers leak arousal and negative affect via their nonverbal display. This experiment tested these predictions, while examining the influence of relational history on deception cues and the stability of deception cues within deceptive conversations. The nonverbal behavior of 130 strangers, friends, and intimates was measured. Results indicated that deceivers signalled nonimmediacy, arousal, and negative affect, but they did not appear to project a positive image. Deception cues were mediated by relational history and showed considerable temporal variation. Strangers leaked more arousal and negative affect than friends and intimates. Further, deceivers, particularly deceiving friends and intimates, seemed to monitor and control their nonverbal behavior during deception by suppressing arousal and negative affect cues and moderating nonimmediate behavior. Research into behavioral cues to deception has linked several types of behavior with deceptive intent. Recent meta-analyses and summaries provide some of the best evidence on the cues related to deception (De-

Verbal and nonverbal cues as mediators of deception ability

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1987

In an extension of previous research on individual differences in deception ability, 35 undergraduate subjects were administered standardized measures of social skills and public self-consciousness and their attitudes on a variety of sociopolitical attitudes were measured. Later, subjects were videotaped while giving pro-attitudinal (truthful) and counter-attitudinal (deceptive) presentations to a videocamera. Videotaped presentations were content analyzed for various verbal and nonverbal cues, and were shown to untrained judges who rated each on a scale of truthfulness/believability. Results of structural modeling analyses indicated that socially skilled subjects were judged as believable regardless of whether they were truth-telling or deceiving. Individuals high in public selfconsciousness were less successful deceivers. Most importantly, these relationships were mediated by certain behavioral cues, particularly cues of verbal fluency, which were consistently associated with judgments of truthfulness. These results have both theoretical and methodological implications for future deception research.

Detecting Deception from Emotional and Unemotional Cues

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2008

Encoders were video recorded giving either truthful or deceptive descriptions of video footage designed to generate either emotional or unemotional responses. Decoders were asked to indicate the truthfulness of each item, what cues they used in making their judgements, and then to complete both the Micro Expression Training Tool (METT) and Subtle Expression Training Tool (SETT). Although overall performance on the deception detection task was no better than chance, performance for emotional lie detection was significantly above chance, while that for unemotional lie detection was significantly below chance. Emotional lie detection accuracy was also significantly positively correlated with reported use of facial expressions and with performance on the SETT, but not on the METT. The study highlights the importance of taking the type of lie into account when assessing skill in deception detection. Keywords Deception detection Á Emotion Á SETT Á METT Deception, whether through omission or direct falsification, is a fundamental part of human social interaction (DePaulo et al. 2003). Deception may refer to anything from trivial, socalled ''white lies'', to situations in which the consequences of detected deception are grave-especially those involving the law. Although many lies are uncovered due to physical evidence or to the presence of third-party information (Park et al. 2002), sometimes this may be insufficient or even non-existent. In such contexts, lie detectors (such as law enforcement agents) may be forced to rely on other cues, such as nonverbal behavior, as indicators of a statement's truth or falsehood.

Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978

Two experiments examined strategies observers use to see through self-presentations. In the first, five male actor subjects lied or told the truth in simulated job interviews. Forty-one observers were moderately accurate in judging the actors' truthfulness. Actors were consistently good or poor liars, but judges were not consistently good or poor. When actors lied, they gave less plausible, shorter answers with longer latencies. Observers seemed to use the plausibility and latency, as well as an answer's vagueness and consistency and an actor's smiling, postural shifting, and grooming, to determine whether he was lying. The second study experimentally manipulated the content of an answer and a nonverbal cue. Observers were more likely to judge a female job applicant as lying when her answers were self-serving. A long hesitation before an answer made observers more suspicious of an already self-serving answer and more certain of the truth of an already forthright one.

Deception in Context: Coding Nonverbal Cues, Situational Variables and Risk of Detection

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2013

There are many situations in which deception may arise and understanding the behaviors associated with it are compounded by various contexts in which it may occur. This paper sets out a coding protocol for identifying cues to deception and reports on three studies, in which deception was studied in different contexts. The contexts involved manipulating risks (i.e., probability) of being detected and reconnaissance, both of which are related to terrorist activities. Two of the studies examined the impact of changing the risks of deception detection, whilst the third investigated increased cognitive demand of duplex deception tasks including reconnaissance and deception. In all three studies, cues to deception were analyzed in relation to observable body movements and subjective impressions given by participants. In general, the results indicate a pattern of hand movement reduction by deceivers, and suggest the notion that raising the risk of detection influences deceivers' behaviors. Participants in the higher risk condition displayed increased negative affect (found in deceivers) and tension (found in both deceivers and truth-tellers) than those in lower risk conditions.

Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2007

In many legal proceedings, fact finders scrutinize the demeanor of a defendant or witness, particularly his or her nonverbal behavior, for indicators of deception. This meta-analysis investigated directly observable nonverbal correlates of deception as a function of different moderator variables. Although lay people and professionals alike assume that many nonverbal behaviors are displayed more frequently while lying, of 11 different behaviors observable in the head and body area, only 3 were reliably associated with deception. Nodding, foot and leg movements, and hand movements were negatively related to deception in the overall analyses weighted by sample size. Most people assume that nonverbal behaviors increase while lying; however, these behaviors decreased, whereas others showed no change. There was no evidence that people avoid eye contact while lying, although around the world, gaze aversion is deemed the most important signal of deception. Most effect sizes were found to be heterogeneous. Analyses of moderator variables revealed that many of the observed relationships varied as a function of content, motivation, preparation, sanctioning of the lie, experimental design, and operationalization. Existing theories cannot readily account for the heterogeneity in findings. Thus, practitioners are cautioned against using these indicators in assessing the truthfulness of oral reports.

Detecting Deceit Via Analyses of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Children and Adults

Human Communication Research, 2004

This experiment examined children's and undergraduates' verbal and nonverbal deceptive behavior, and the extent to which their truths and lies could be correctly classified by paying attention to these responses. A total of 196 participants (aged 5-6, 10-11, 14-15, and undergraduates) participated in an erasing the blackboard event, and told the truth or lied about the event afterwards. Nonverbal and verbal responses were coded, the latter with Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring. Although children and undergraduates demonstrated different behaviors (for example, the children obtained lower CBCA scores and made more movements), actual cues to deceit were remarkably similar across different age groups (for example, both 5-6-year-olds and undergraduates obtained lower CBCA scores and made fewer movements while lying). A combination of verbal and nonverbal lie detection methods resulted in more correct classifications of liars and truth tellers than the verbal and nonverbal lie detection methods individually, with the combined method obtaining hit rates as high as 88%. Deceptive responses 2 Detecting Deceit Via Analyses of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Children and Adults Although it sounds reasonable to suggest that looking at a combination of nonverbal and verbal behaviors ("speech content") will lead to more accurate classifications of liars and truth tellers than investigating nonverbal and verbal behaviors separately, researchers rarely investigate both types simultaneously. Vrij, Edward, Roberts, and Bull (2000) examined (adult) participants' nonverbal and verbal behavior (the latter investigated with Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring) and obtained the most accurate classifications of liars and truth tellers when both the nonverbal and verbal behaviors were taken into account. Similarly, in the present study, both nonverbal and verbal responses of liars and truth tellers were investigated. However, the present study differs from Vrij et al.'s (2000) study in several ways. Perhaps the most important difference was that in the present study apart from adults (undergraduates) children also participated, and this seems the first study in which truthful and deceptive verbal and nonverbal behaviors of both children and adults were investigated and compared. Research examining children's nonverbal behavior relating to deceit is rare, and less than a handful of studies have been published to date (see Vrij, 2002, for a review). Child deception research has mainly focused on questions such as whether children lie, why they lie and when they lie (Frank, 1992). At the same time, examining children's behavior while lying is important for both theoretical and practical reasons, the latter due at least in part to the fact that police officers, social workers, judges and juries are sometimes confronted with the question of whether a child is lying or telling the truth. Theoretical Reasons to Explain Deceptive Nonverbal Behavior Three perspectives (the emotional, cognitive complexity and attempted behavioral control perspectives) seem particularly important for predicting and explaining nonverbal