Deception Cues Research Articles

Anger as a cue to truthfulness

A fairly robust finding in the deception literature is that lie-tellers show more negative emotion than truth-tellers. Ekman (1985), however, has reasoned that a specific type of negative emotion – anger – is especially difficult to feign and therefore should be more prevalent in truth-tellers who are falsely accused of a transgression than in lie-tellers who are guilty. To our knowledge, Ekman’s prediction has not yet been empirically tested. By comparing the verbal and nonverbal cues associated with truths and lies across a number of lie-eliciting situations, we demonstrate that truth-tellers accused of a wrongdoing do show more anger, both verbally and nonverbally, than lie-tellers accused of the same act, but only in situations where students choose to commit a transgression (or not) and actually believe themselves to be in trouble. Results underlie the importance of taking into consideration the type of lie being told in order to accurately predict deceptive cues.

A Few Transparent Liars Explaining 54% Accuracy in Deception Detection Experiments

Deception detection experiments consistently find that people are statistically significantly, but only slightly, better than chance. The stability of this finding and the lack of variance in judge ability are at odds with current and classic deception theory that explains accuracy in terms of message recipient’s ability to spot leaked deception cues. An alternative explanation based on limited variance in message source transparency provides a more coherent account of deception detection findings and has important implications for past and future deception theory.

Training to detect what? The biasing effects of training on veracity judgments

AbstractResearch has failed to show that training to detect deception substantially increases accuracy. Instead, training yields a stronger tendency to make judgments of deceptiveness. Normally, training programmes place a strong emphasis on deception and deception cues. This may lead observers to engage in a biased information seeking process wherein only deception cues are searched for, and any suggestion that the person is being truthful is neglected. Two experiments were conducted in which participants made veracity judgments before and after being ostensibly trained to (a) detect deception (traditional training group or TRAD‐GR), (b) detect truthfulness (alternative training group or ALT‐GR) or (c) not being trained (control group or CONT‐GR). Deception judgments increased for the TRAD‐GR, but decreased for the ALT‐GR, and did not change for the CONT‐GR. Judgmental confidence significantly increased in both training groups, but not in the CONT‐GR. These results indicate that traditional training programmes to detect deception bias the trainees' judgments towards deception. An emphasis on truthfulness cues could compensate for this tendency, as well as for the professionals' inclination to judge other people's statements as deceptive. However, the poor diagnostic value of deception cues makes it difficult to design good training programmes. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Deceptive responses: The impact of verbal and non‐verbal countermeasures

Objectives. This experiment investigates the impact of informing participants about verbal and non‐verbal cues to deception on their verbal and non‐verbal responses. Based on the fact that people are more practised in their verbal behaviour than in their non‐verbal behaviour, we predicted that giving participants information about verbal cues would positively affect their verbal accounts resulting in them giving an account that appeared more credible. In contrast, we predicted that informing participants about non‐verbal cues would have no noticeable effect on credibility. We also predicted that focusing on verbal behaviours would impair non‐verbal performance and that, vice versa, concentrating on non‐verbal behaviours would impair verbal performance, particularly in liars.Method. A total of 128 participants either told the truth or lied about the possession of an object. Prior to these interviews, participants were or were not informed about verbal cues to deception and were or were not informed about non‐verbal cues of deception (these two factors were systematically manipulated).Results. As predicted, participants were able to adapt their verbal behaviour but were not able to change their non‐verbal behaviour. However, focusing on one aspect (either verbal or non‐verbal behaviour) did not occur at the expense of the other behaviour (either non‐verbal or verbal).Conclusion. Verbal countermeasures may well be easier to apply than non‐verbal countermeasures.

Behavioral Cues to Deception vs. Topic Incriminating Potential in Criminal Confessions.

Coding statements of criminal suspects facilitated tests of four hypotheses about differences between behavioral cues to deception and the incriminating potential (IP) of the topic. Information from criminal investigations corroborated the veracity of 337 brief utterances from 28 videotaped confessions. A four-point rating of topic IP measured the degree of potential threat per utterance. Cues discriminating true vs. false comprised word/phrase repeats, speech disfluency spikes, nonverbal overdone, and protracted headshaking. Non-lexical sounds discriminated true vs. false in the reverse direction. Cues that distinguished IP only comprised speech speed, gesticulation amount, nonverbal animation level, soft weak vocal and "I (or we) just" qualifier. Adding "I don't know" to an answer discriminated both IP and true vs. false. The results supported hypothesis about differentiating deception cues from incriminating potential cues in high-stakes interviews, and suggested that extensive research on distinctions between stress-related cues and cues to deception would improve deception detection.

Facial appearance and impressions of ‘credibility’: The effects of facial babyishness and age on person perception

The babyface overgeneralization effect is perceiving that people whose facial features resemble those of children have childlike traits, and treating them accordingly. This experiment sought to replicate the US findings with a South‐European sample, to examine the impact of facial maturity on impressions of truthfulness, and to examine the influence of age on person perception. Three‐hundred and twenty‐four Spanish undergraduates were shown a photograph and had to rate it on a series of behavioural‐tendency and trait scales measuring honesty, truthfulness, strength, dominance, intelligence, naivety, and warmth. The photographs were babyfaced, intermediate, and mature faced computer‐manipulated versions of three pictures of the same individual at three different ages. Results indicate that the experimental manipulations significantly affected most of the dependent variables. Babyfaced individuals were perceived as the most truthful, and children as the most deceitful. However, when the deceit concerned a sexual abuse allegation, children were rated as the least deceitful. These results support the existence of (a) the babyface overgeneralization effect, (b) the stereotype that children are unreliable witnesses, and (c) the belief that children never lie about sexual abuse offenses. They also suggest that facial babyishness and age may be static perceived deception cues that may account for the demeanour bias found in nonverbal research on the detection of deceit.

Cues to deception.

Cues to deception.

Detecting deception in pain expressions: the structure of genuine and deceptive facial displays

Clinicians tend to assign greater weight to non-verbal expression than to patients' self-report when judging the location and severity of pain. Judgments can misrepresent the actual experience because patients can successfully alter their pain expressions. The present research provides a basis for discriminating genuine and deceptive pain expressions by expanding detailed accounts of facial expressions to include previously unexamined variables, including study of temporal patterns and contiguity of facial actions as well as the occurrence of specific deception cues. Low back patients' facial expressions ( n=40) were videotaped at rest and while undergoing a painful straight leg raise with instructions to: (1) genuinely express their pain, or (2) pretend that it did not hurt. As well, they were asked to fake pain without moving. The Facial Action Coding System was used to describe and quantify facial activity. The different types of expression were compared on the frequency, type, intensity, temporal pattern and contiguity of facial actions, as well as on the frequency of specific deception cues. Findings confirmed the difficulty of discriminating the facial expressions, but indicated that faked pain expressions show a greater number of pain-related and non-pain-related actions, have a longer peak intensity and overall duration, and the facial actions observed tend to be less temporally contiguous than are those in genuine pain expressions. The differences between masked pain and neutral expressions were subtle, with a greater frequency of mouth opening and residual eyebrow movement in masked pain expressions. Thus, there is an empirical basis for discriminating genuine and deceptive facial displays.

Pattern violations and perceptions of deception

This research hypothesizes that observers associate deceptiveness with inconsistency in nonverbal behaviors (i.e., pattern violations) rather than with the mere presence of certain nonverbal cues. To test the hypothesis, two studies were designed to assess the impact of witness behavior on observer ratings of deceptiveness and nervousness. Participants observed mock witness testimony pertaining to an insurance claim investigation. During the testimony a witness enacted low, inconsistent, or high levels of deceptive nonverbal cues. In each study, inconsistent levels of nonverbal cues produced higher ratings of witness’ deceptiveness than did high or low levels of deceptive nonverbal cues. The relationship between perceptions of deceptiveness and nervousness was also examined.

"I'm innocent!": Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room.

The present research examined the extent to which people can distinguish true and false denials made in a criminal interrogation, and tested the hypothesis that training in the use of verbal and nonverbal cues increases the accuracy of these judgments. In Phase One, 16 participants committed one of four mock crimes (breaking and entering, vandalism, shoplifting, a computer break-in) or a related but innocent act. Given incentives to deny involvement rather than confess, these suspects were then interrogated. In Phase Two, 40 observers were either trained in the analysis of verbal and nonverbal deception cues or not trained before viewing the videotaped interrogations and making their judgments. As in past studies conducted in nonforensic settings, observers were generally unable to distinguish between truthful and deceptive suspects. In addition, those who underwent training were less accurate than naive controls—though they were more confident and cited more reasons for their judgments. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of what is known about police interrogations, false confessions, and the wrongful conviction of innocent suspects.

The effects of suspicion on the recall of cues used to make veracity judgments

The present study investigated the effects of suspicion on the recall of cues used to make veracity judgments. It was hypothesized that more noncontent cues would be attended to by suspicious individuals than nonsuspicious individuals. One hundred thirteen participants viewed videotapes of persons describing their work history truthfully or deceitfully under high and low suspiciousness conditions. Following the videotapes, the participants were asked to indicate whether the applicant had held the job and produced a written explanation for their judgments. When these statements were content analyzed for types of deception cues, the results supported the hypothesis.

DIRTY DATA AND INVESTIGATIVE METHODS

Qualitative researchers have overlooked the potential scholarly utility private detectives' investigative methods possess for coping with informant deceptions and accessing dirty data. Using interview and observational data, I present private detectives' investigative techniques and a generalizable model they offer for dirty data inquiries consisting of deception cues, leakages, enactment, reconstruction, and surfacing. I then identify accessible secret repositories that private detectives use, consider the performance vulnerabilities in dirty data behaviors they expose, and determine the questions they raise about how secrets are socially embedded. Finally, I illustrate three ethnographic applications for investigative methods: checking informant veracity, secondary analysis of dirty data behaviors, and unexplored secret repositories. I conclude by addressing ethical concerns in implementing these methods and by calling for a bolder scholarly attitude about garnering dirty data.

Age differences in the decoding of affect authenticity and intensity

Second and sixth grade primary school children and adults were tested to determine their ability to: (1) detect maskings, inhibitions and simulations of feelings of like and dislike and (2) discriminate intensity differences in spontaneous facial expressions of these affects. Adults scored at chance level with respect to detecting negative simulations, while their detection scores for the other forms of pretense were above chance and did not differ from each other. The children did as well as the adults in detecting the maskings and inhibitions of negative emotions. It is assumed that the theatricality of the reactions was the deception cue. The children did worse than the adults, and even scored below chance, in detecting the maskings and inhibitions of positive feelings and the simulations of negative feelings. This was explained as the consequence of a positivity bias. Adults did significantly better in discriminating the intensity of expressions than did the two groups of children. In addition, the sixth graders outperformed the second graders. In none of the age groups were there any significant correlations, either between the deception detection scores and the ability to discriminate intensity differences, or among the detection scores for the three types of deception.

Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers

Buller and Burgoon (in press) 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.

Shape constancy in pictorial representation

When one looks at a picture from an oblique direction, its retinal projection is foreshortened, but this distortion in proximal stimulation is usually not perceived. A correction akin to shape constancy takes place. Experiments are reported that show that this correction can be the result of compensation that takes the slant of the picture plane relative to the line of sight into account. When deceptive cues for the orientation of the picture plane were provided, the perceived shape in the picture conformed to a compensation based on the deceptive cues.

PLANNING AND CONTROL OF BEHAVIOR DURING DECEPTION

Few behaviors have been found that consistently differentiate deceivers from truth-tellers. Consequently, recent research has focused upon identifying the factors that impact upon the display of behavioral correlates of deception. Following previous work in this area, four factors held to be important in this regard are reviewed: arousal, emotion, cognitive difficulty, and control. An integrative model that explicates the interrelations of these components is then developed. Finally, a study examining the effects of preparation and control on leakage during deception is presented. Planning of deception was found to relate to response latency and duration of eye contact. In addition, subjects appear to use inhibitory control processes to suppress the display of behavioral cues of deception.

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.

Nonverbal communication and deception: Differences in deception cues due to gender and communicator dominance

This study investigates whether communicator characteristics (gender and communicator dominance) in nonverbal displays in truth‐telling circumstances can be used to predict differences in deception cue leakage. Based on the arguments advanced by Hocking and Leathers in their 1980 article, it was argued that individuals who are more likely to exhibit a controllable behavior that is judged as stereotypical of liars during truth‐telling would be more likely to suppress the behavior when lying. Male liars suppressed leg/foot movement and the use of illustrators when lying and increased facial adapting when lying (but only when prepared to lie). Contrary to expectations, there were no gender differences for laughter/smiling or for eye contact duration. Low dominant liars employed shorter latencies prior to lying and during a prepared lie than low dominant truth‐tellers. Low dominant liars also provided briefer answers and engaged in less postural shifting throughout the entire interaction than low dominant truth‐tellers. Results provided general support for the Hocking and Leathers perspective. Recommendations for future research are provided.

Facial and vocal cues of deception and honesty

Facial expressions and vocal cues (filtered speech) of honest and deceptive messages were examined in posed and spontaneous situations. The question of interest was the degree to which nonverbal cues transmit information about deception. Results indicated that (a) for both the facial and vocal channels, posing (as compared to spontaneous behavior) produced a higher level of communication accuracy; (b) facial expressions of deceptive (as compared to honest) messages were rated as less pleasant, while vocal expressions of deception were rated as less honest, less assertive, and less dominant, particularly in the posed condition; (c) the sender's ability to convey honesty was negatively correlated with his/her ability to convey deception, suggesting the existence of a demeanor bias—individual senders tend to appear and sound consistently honest (or dishonest) regardless of whether they deliver an honest or a deceptive message; (d) in the posing condition, the sender's abilities to convey honesty/deception via facial and vocal cues were positively and significantly correlated, whereas in the spontaneous condition they were not; and (e) senders whose full (unfiltered) speech indicated more involvement with their responses were judged as more honest from both their vocal (filtered speech) and facial cues, in both the honest and deceptive conditions.