Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception

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.Preparation of this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.     

Cultural patterns in Dutch and Surinam nonverbal behavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters

Differences in nonverbal behavioral patterns in a simulated police interview setting were examined. One group of subjects was asked to tell the truth to a police officer whereas the other group was asked to deceive the officer. Major differences between our study and other deception studies include the distinction between nonverbal behavior displayed while listening and while speaking, and the inclusion of black subjects. Results show that there are differences in nonverbal behavior between deceivers and those who tell the truth, and generally support the finding that deception is associated with changes in vocal characteristics and hand and arm movements. However, differences in hand and arm movements occurred only while the deceiver was listening. Furthermore, findings showed that blacks looked less frequently at their discussion partner, smiled and laughed more, made more speech disturbances, spoke slower, and with more pitch raises, and were livelier in the sense that they made more trunk movements and gestures than whites.We wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft. This project was in part supported by the PSYCHON Foundation, which is subsidized by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.     

Windows to the Soul? Deliberate Eye Contact as a Cue to Deceit

Although people overwhelmingly believe that liars avoid eye contact, meta-analyses of deception literature have shown a non-significant relationship between gaze and deception. In the present experiment we measured eye movements in an innovative way. We coded the extent to which interviewees deliberately made eye contact with the interviewer. Liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers. They therefore may have a greater desire to be convincing and hence more inclined to monitor the interviewer to determine whether they seem to be being believed. We therefore hypothesized that liars would give more appearance of deliberately making eye contact than truth tellers (a relationship which opposes the stereotypical belief that liars look away). A total of 338 passengers at an international airport told the truth or lied about their forthcoming trip. As well as the deliberate eye contact variable, we coded the amount of time the interviewees looked away from the interviewer (e.g., gaze aversion), which is typically examined in deception research. Liars displayed more deliberate eye contact than truth tellers, whereas the amount of gaze aversion did not differ between truth tellers and liars.     

Adults' perceptions of children's videotaped truthful and deceptive statements

SUMMARY. This article uses a research study on decisions about children's truth telling to discuss the difficult issues involved in using video-taped evidence in child abuse cases. The adult raters had to decide whether each child recounting a school trip was telling the truth or had only seen a video recording of the day's events. Raters were just above chance in detecting truth and deception, were better able to detect truth tellers than deceivers, and were more successful in decoding deceptive behaviour presented by boys and younger children. Most accuracy-confidence relationships were not significant.     

Effects of segmentation patterns on the perception of deception

Subjects viewed videotapes of truthful and deceptive messages. Channels presented were either face or body with or without speech. Subjects were instructed to segment each message into either large, medium, or small units; following the segmentation of a message, subjects rated its truthfulness. Results showed that subjects who organized the behavior into small units perceived the messages as more truthful than those who organized the behavior into either medium or large units. In addition, when speech was available, accuracy of lie detection was highest when the behavior was segmented into medium units; when speech was not available, accuracy of lie detection was highest when the behavior was segmented into small units. The effects of observation set on the perception of deception were discussed.     

Detecting Deceit via Analysis of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior

We examined the hypotheses that (1) a systematic analysis of nonverbal behavior could be useful in the detection of deceit and (2) that lie detection would be most accurate if both verbal and nonverbal indicators of deception are taken into account. Seventy-three nursing students participated in a study about telling lies and either told the truth or lied about a film they had just seen. The interviews were videotaped and audiotaped, and the nonverbal behavior (NVB) and speech content of the liars and truth tellers were analyzed, the latter with the Criteria-Based Content Analysis technique (CBCA) and the Reality Monitoring technique (RM). Results revealed several nonverbal and verbal indicators of deception. On the basis of nonverbal behavior alone, 78% of the lies and truths could be correctly classified. An even higher percentage could be correctly classified when all three detection techniques (i.e., NVB, CBCA, RM) were taken into account.     

The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives

Previous research shows that observers are hardly able to detect deception above the level of chance. The literature reveals several suggestions on how to improve the detection of deception. In this experiment the impact of four suggestions was tested. According to two suggestions the accuracy rate will improve if observers are provided with relevant information, such as (1) information about indicators of deception, or (2) outcome feedback. The two other suggestions emphasize that detecting deception is easier under certain circumstances than under others, that is, (3) spontaneous interviews are more detectable than planned interviews, and (4) the presence of comparison with a baseline facilitates the detection of deception. In the present experiment 360 police detectives assessed subjects' veracity on the basis of short videotaped interviews. Detectives watched the clips in one of 12 conditions formed by the crossing of four levels of setting (one spontaneous interview/one planned interview/two interviews-total image/two interviews-hands only) with three levels of information (no information/information about objective indicators of deception/information about objective indicators of deception plus feedback). Results revealed that information improved detection of deception, but only in the planned interview condition and the two interviews-hands only condition.This study was supported by a grant from the Recherche Advies Commissie (RAC) of the Ministry of Justice.     

Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics

Much past research on deception has examined it individually and noninteractively. Here we argue for broadening our understanding of deception by examining it as a dyadic and interactive event. Assumptions of an interpersonal perspective, articulated in Interpersonal Deception Theory, are advanced. These include recognizing the agency of both parties to interpersonal exchanges, examining such exchanges at multiple levels, incorporating measures of communicationrelated perceptions and interpretations as well as behaviors, recognizing that behaviors may be strategic as well as nonstrategic, and viewing such behavior as dynamic rather than static. An experiment reflecting this orientation is presented in which pairs of participants, half friends and half strangers, conducted interviews during which interviewees (EEs) either lied or told the truth to interviewers (ERs) who were induced to be highly, moderately, or not suspicious. Dependent measures included participant (EE and ER) perceptions, interpretations, and evaluations of EE behaviors and trained coders' ratings of actual nonverbal behaviors. Consistent with the theory, deceivers were more uncertain and vague, more nonimmediate and reticent, showed more negative affect, displayed more arousal and non-composure, and generally made a poorer impression than truthtellers. Their behaviors also connoted greater formality and submissiveness. Also consistent with the theory's premise that deceptive interactions are dynamic, deceivers' kinesic relaxation and pleasantness changed over time, in line with a behavior and image management interpretation, and degree of reciprocity between EE and ER nonverbal behaviors was affected by the presence of deception and suspicion.Portions of this paper were presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, May 1989. This project was funded by the U.S. Army Research Institute (Contract #MDA903-90-K-0113). The views, opinions, and/or findings in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision.     

Learning to detect deception from three communication channels

A Lie Detection Test—a videotape of senders delivering truthful and deceptive messages—was administered to subjects via one of three channels: Face only, speech only, or face plus speech. Feedback information, identifying the messages as truthful or deceptive, was given to some subjects (learning condition) but not to others (control). It was found that subjects in the learning condition performed better overall relative to control subjects, regardless of the channel presented to them. In addition, however, accuracy of subjects in the learning condition improved progressively over the course of the test (relative to control), for the speech only and face plus speech channels but not for the face only channel. This effect was interpreted in terms of the limited number of deception cues offered by the face.     

Revisiting Perceiver and Target Gender Effects in Deception Detection

Existing research is inconclusive regarding the influence of perceiver gender and target gender on lie detection. Researchers have offered a number of conclusions regarding gender effects in deception detection (e.g., women are better at lie detection than men, participant and target gender interact in predicting deception detection accuracy, there are no gender effects in deception detection). In the current work, we revisit the question of whether and how gender influences lie detection, employing a large database of controlled stimuli, a large sample size, and the analytical advantages provided by signal detection theory. Participants viewed videos of male and female targets telling truths and lies about interpersonal relationships, and after each video, they rendered a truth or lie judgment. Female targets were easier to “read” (i.e., greater sensitivity) and were called liars more frequently than male targets. No effects of participant gender were observed. This work sheds light on an important issue in the lie detection literature (i.e., does gender matter?), and it identifies important considerations for understanding gender biases and cross-gender social interactions.     

Kinesic Patterning in Deceptive and Truthful Interactions

A persistent question in the deception literature has been the extent to which nonverbal behaviors can reliably distinguish between truth and deception. It has been argued that deception instigates cognitive load and arousal that are betrayed through visible nonverbal indicators. Yet, empirical evidence has often failed to find statistically significant or strong relationships. Given that interpersonal message production is characterized by a high degree of simultaneous and serial patterning among multiple behaviors, it may be that patterns of behaviors are more diagnostic of veracity. Or it may be that the theorized linkage between internal states of arousal, cognitive taxation, and efforts to control behavior and nonverbal behaviors are wrong. The current investigation addressed these possibilities by applying a software program called THEME to analyze the patterns of kinesic movements (adaptor gestures, illustrator gestures, and speaker and listener head movements) rated by trained coders for participants in a mock crime experiment. Our multifaceted analysis revealed that the quantity and quality of patterns distinguish truths from untruths. Quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted by case and condition revealed high variability in the types and complexities of patterns that were produced and differences between truthful and deceptive respondents questioned about a theft. Patterns incorporating adaptors and illustrator gestures were correlated in counterintuitive ways with arousal, cognitive load, and behavioral control, and qualitative analyses produced unique insights into truthful and untruthful communication.     

When do we see that others misrepresent how they feel? detecting deception from emotional faces with direct and indirect measures

Nonverbally-expressed emotions are not always linked to people’s true emotions. We investigated whether observers’ ability to distinguish trues from lies differs for positive and negative emotional expressions. Participants judged targets either simulating or truly experiencing positive or negative emotions. Deception detection was measured by participants’ inference of the targets’ emotions and their direct judgments of deception. Results of the direct measure showed that participants could not accurately distinguish between truth tellers and liars, regardless which emotion was expressed. As anticipated, the effects emerged on the indirect emotion measure: participants distinguished liars from truth tellers when inferring experienced emotions from negative emotional expressions, but not positive emotional expressions.     

Spokespersons’ Nonverbal Behavior in Times of Crisis: The Relative Importance of Visual and Vocal Cues

When a chief executive officer or spokesperson responds to an organizational crisis, he or she communicates not only with verbal cues but also visual and vocal cues. While most research in the area of crisis communication has focused on verbal cues (e.g., apologies, denial), this paper explores the relative importance of visual and vocal cues by spokespersons of organizations in crisis. Two experimental studies have more specifically examined the impact of a spokesperson’s visual cues of deception (i.e., gaze aversion, posture shifts, adaptors), because sending a credible response is crucial in times of crisis. Each study focused on the interplay of these visual cues with two specific vocal cues that have also been linked to perceptions of deception (speech disturbances in study 1; voice pitch in study 2). Both studies show that visual cues of deception negatively affect both consumers’ attitudes towards the organization (study 1) and their purchase intentions (study 2) after a crisis. In addition, the findings indicate that in crisis communication, the impact of visual cues dominates the outcomes of vocal cues. In both studies, vocal cues only affected consumers’ perceptions when the spokesperson displayed visual cues of deception. More specifically, the findings show that crisis communication messages with speech disturbances (study 1) or a raised voice pitch (study 2) can negatively affect organizational post-crisis perceptions.     

Beliefs about cues associated with deception

People's beliefs about the association of 19 visual and auditory cues with deception were assessed in one of two questionnaires: Subjects were asked to indicate the association of each cue with deception in their own behavior (self-perception condition) or in other people's behavior (other-perception condition). The 19 behaviors listed in the questionnaires had been previously examined in research on actual behaviors associated with deception; ten of these behaviors had also been examined in research on cues associated with judgment of deception. Stronger association between the various cues and deception were obtained in the other-perception than in the self-perception condition, indicating that people believe they control their own deceptive behavior better than other people control theirs. Beliefs about the association of each behavior with deception (averaged across the two conditions and sex of respondents) correlated .11 with the actual association of each cue with deception, and .44 with the association of each cue with judgment of deception. The possibility that the correspondence between beliefs about deception and actual cues to deception is higher for some specific types of lie-telling was discussed.     

The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit

The present study examined the impact of viewing condition on accuracy in detecting deception. In Experiment 1, observers saw: 1) a single interview for each subject and then judged whether it was honest or deceptive; or 2) two interviews for each subject, and then judged which one was deceptive. All observers were given the full audiovisual record; they were able to see the face and the entire body and to hear the speech as it was spoken. As predicted, detection accuracy when two interviews were available for comparison was significantly higher than accuracy for a single interview. In both cases, however, mean detection accuracy was not significantly different from chance. In Experiment 2, the impact of viewing order of the two interviews (honest first vs. deception first) was assessed. When honest interviews were shown first, judges' accuracy was significantly greater than when deceptive interviews were shown first, and it was also significantly better than chance. Heuristics such as anchoring and representativeness may account for this phenomenon. Reasons for observers' inability to detect deception in this, and other studies, are discussed.Paul Ekman's work is also supported by a Research Scientist Award from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH 06092) and a previous grant from NIMH (MH11976).     

Lying through others: Does delegation promote deception?

How do agency relationships affect an individual’s willingness to lie for monetary advantage? Does lie aversion decline if a lie (or truth) is sent through an agent, rather than sent directly by the individual? In a recent paper, Erat (2013) shows that a significant proportion of his subjects prefer to delegate a deception decision. We present experiments designed to focus on one of several possible explanations for this intriguing behavior – that delegation reduces lie aversion. The experiments reveal that subjects are more willing to lie through a delegate than to lie directly despite controlling for potential effects of delegated decision-making on preferences over payoffs, probabilities of actions, and/or the desire to avoid taking a decision.     

Self-deception in public relations. A psychological and sociological approach to the challenge of conflicting expectations

The paper enquires into the role of self-deception in public relations struggling with discrepancies between heterogeneous stakeholder expectations and organizational interests and particularly between normative expectations of truthfulness and practical temptations of deception. Drawing on theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology and sociology, we propose a framework for the origins, drivers, and functions of self-deception in public relations. The analysis reveals that under specific conditions self-deception can be an essential mechanism in public relations because it relieves practitioners from tensions driven by conflicting perceptions of truth and legitimacy. Self-deception is most likely to occur in situations of cognitive dissonance for practitioners to balance internal information processing and in situations of normative pressure when practitioners seek to comply with external expectations.     

The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers

This study examined the effect of probing for additional information on the accuracy of deception detection. One hundred forty-eight experimental interactions were analyzed to see whether deceivers and truthtellers behave differently when probed and whether probing improved deception detection. Probing produced a number of changes in nonverbal behavior, several of which differed between deceivers and truthtellers. Probing may have communicated suspicion or uncertainty; therefore, deceptive sources were motivated to control their nonverbal demeanor to mask deception-related cues and appear truthful. Probing did not improve detection. Instead, probing receivers considered all sources more truthful. It is suggested that suspiciousness and prior knowledge may affect probing's efficacy.     

Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing to Increase Vocalizations in Children with Language Delays: a Review

Stimulus-stimulus pairing (SSP) is a procedure used to increase vocalizations in children with significant language delays. However, results from studies that have examined the effectiveness of SSP have been discrepant. The following review of the literature summarizes the results from 13 experiments published between 1996 and 2014 that used this procedure with children with language delays. Studies were analyzed across various participant and procedural variables, and an effect size estimate (nonoverlap of all pairs) was calculated for a portion of the participants in the studies reviewed. Results indicated an overall moderate intervention effect for SSP of speech sounds. Recommendations are provided for future researchers about information to report and potential avenues for future studies.     

The Shifting "Balance' Between Criminal Investigation and Privacy

In the past decade, numerous ICT-related investigation powers have been introduced or extended. Have these shifted the balance between criminal investigation and privacy? Do governments allow more privacy infringements for the sake of law enforcement than they used to do? As a first step towards answering these questions, this paper presents the results of a case study of communications interception law in the Netherlands. The study offers a historical analysis of the introduction and changes in Dutch law regarding powers to investigate post, telegraphy, telephony, telecommunications, oral communications and traffic data in the period 1838- 2002. The case study shows that the balance between criminal investigation and privacy in Dutch law has shifted somewhat towards law enforcement, particularly in 2000, but privacy is not altogether discarded. Still, privacy does not appear to operate on a par with law enforcement: it seems a secondary rather than a primary factor in legislative practice. Governments and parliaments should pay more attention to substantiating the need for extending investigation powers, if they want to retain a semblance of truth when they speak of the "balance' between criminal investigation and privacy.