Cues to deception.

Do people behave differently when they are lying compared with when they are telling the truth? The combined results of 1,338 estimates of 158 cues to deception are reported. Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales. They also make a more negative impression and are more tense. Their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents. However, many behaviors showed no discernible links, or only weak links, to deceit. Cues to deception were more pronounced when people were motivated to succeed, especially when the motivations were identity relevant rather than monetary or material. Cues to deception were also stronger when lies were about transgressions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias.

The authors report a meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception, confining attention to occasions when people judge strangers' veracity in real-time with no special aids. The authors have developed a statistical technique to correct nominal individual differences for differences introduced by random measurement error. Although researchers have suggested that people differ in the ability to detect lies, psychometric analyses of 247 samples reveal that these ability differences are minute. In terms of the percentage of lies detected, measurement-corrected standard deviations in judge ability are less than 1%. In accuracy, judges range no more widely than would be expected by chance, and the best judges are no more accurate than a stochastic mechanism would produce. When judging deception, people differ less in ability than in the inclination to regard others' statements as truthful. People also differ from one another as lie- and truth-tellers. They vary in the detectability of their lies. Moreover, some people are more credible than others whether lying or truth-telling. Results reveal that the outcome of a deception judgment depends more on the liar's credibility than any other individual difference. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments.

Decades of research has shown that people are poor at detecting lies. Two explanations for this finding have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that lie detection is inaccurate because people rely on invalid cues when judging deception. Second, it has been suggested that lack of valid cues to deception limits accuracy. A series of 4 meta-analyses tested these hypotheses with the framework of Brunswik's (1952) lens model. Meta-Analysis 1 investigated perceived cues to deception by correlating 66 behavioral cues in 153 samples with deception judgments. People strongly associate deception with impressions of incompetence (r = .59) and ambivalence (r = .49). Contrary to self-reports, eye contact is only weakly correlated with deception judgments (r = ?.15). Cues to perceived deception were then compared with cues to actual deception. The results show a substantial covariation between the 2 sets of cues (r = .59 in Meta-Analysis 2, r = .72 in Meta-Analysis 3). Finally, in Meta-Analysis 4, a lens model analysis revealed a very strong matching between behaviorally based predictions of deception and behaviorally based predictions of perceived deception. In conclusion, contrary to previous assumptions, people rarely rely on the wrong cues. Instead, limitations in lie detection accuracy are mainly attributable to weaknesses in behavioral cues to deception. The results suggest that intuitive notions about deception are more accurate than explicit knowledge and that lie detection is more readily improved by increasing behavioral differences between liars and truth tellers than by informing lie-catchers of valid cues to deception. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Individual differences in judging deception: Reply to O'Sullivan (2008) and Pigott and Wu (2008).

C. F. Bond and B. M. DePaulo (see record 2008-08177-001) reported a quantitative synthesis of individual differences in judging deception. Here, the authors respond to a pair of commentaries on this synthesis: a statistical critique by T. D. Pigott and M. J. Wu (see record 2008-08177-003)and a narrative reaction by M. O'Sullivan (see record 2008-08177-002). In response to suggestions made by Pigott and Wu, the authors conduct several alternative analyses of individual differences in judging deception. Without exception, these yield results similar to those that the authors reported earlier. In response to O'Sullivan's questions, the authors point to their meta-analyses of relevant moderator variables. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Nonverbal clues to deception in a psychotherapy analogue.

Investigated the nonverbal concomitants of deception in a psychotherapy analog using 26 undergraduates. Ss were first interviewed by the experimenter and were asked to respond truthfully to 5 personal questions. Asked to role-play clients in psychotherapy, Ss were then interviewed by a therapist who asked the same questions but were asked to lie on a predetermined question. From videotapes of the interviews, observers rated the frequency of 9 nonverbal behavior variables. Results indicate that length of response, speech errors or nonfluencies, and hesitation before answering the question, respectively, were significant correlates of deception. Results are discussed in relation to prior findings and with regard to the relative contribution of kinesic and paralinguistic nonverbal behavior variables to the detection of deception. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The prototypical pride expression: Development of a nonverbal behavior coding system.

This research provides a systematic analysis of the nonverbal expression of pride. Study 1 manipulated behavioral movements relevant to pride (e.g., expanded posture and head tilt) to identify the most prototypical pride expression and determine the specific components that are necessary and sufficient for reliable recognition. Studies 2 and 3 tested whether the 2 conceptually and empirically distinct facets of pride ("authentic" and "hubristic"; J. L. Tracy & R. W. Robins, 2007a) are associated with distinct nonverbal expressions. Results showed that neither the prototypical pride expression nor several recognizable variants were differentially associated with either facet, suggesting that for the most part, authentic and hubristic pride share the same signal. Together these studies indicate that pride can be reliably assessed from nonverbal behaviors. In the Appendix, the authors provide guidelines for a pride behavioral coding scheme, akin to the Emotion Facial Action Coding System (EMFACS; P. Ekman & E. Rosenberg, 1997) for assessing "basic" emotions from observable nonverbal behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study.

Conducted a multichannel investigation of how gender-based familiarity moderates verbal and nonverbal behaviors between men and women. Undergraduates in 24 mixed-sex dyads discussed masculine, feminine, and non-gender-linked topics. The primary dependent variables were verbal and nonverbal behaviors related to social power. The verbal behaviors examined were speech initiations and total amount of speech; the nonverbal behaviors studied were visual behavior (while speaking and while listening), gesturing, chin thrusts, and smiling. Systematic differences in the behaviors of men and women emerged on the gender-linked tasks. On the masculine task men displayed more verbal and nonverbal power-related behavior than did women. On the feminine task women exhibited more power than men on most of the verbal and nonverbal measures. On the non-gender-linked task men displayed greater power both verbally and nonverbally than did women. There were 2 exceptions to this overall pattern. Across all conditions, women smiled more often than did men, and men had a higher frequency of chin thrusts than did women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotype threat in criminal interrogations: Why innocent Black suspects are at risk for confessing falsely.

Little theoretical attention has been paid to evidence that Blacks are overrepresented in samples of false confessors compared to Whites. One possible explanation is that innocent Black suspects experience stereotype threat in interrogations and that this threat causes Black suspects to experience more arousal, self-regulatory efforts, and cognitive load compared to White suspects. These psychological mechanisms could lead innocent Black suspects to display more nonverbal behaviors associated with deception and, ironically, increase the likelihood that police investigators perceive them as guilty. In response, investigators might engage in more coercive tactics and exert more pressure to confess on Black suspects than White suspects. This could increase the need to escape interrogation and the likelihood of doing so by confessing falsely more for Blacks than for Whites. I present these hypotheses within a social psychological framework, and discuss future directions for testing the model and theoretical and practical implications of such work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation.

Because of special characteristics of nonverbal behaviors (e.g., they can be difficult to suppress, they are more accessible to the people who observe them than to the people who produce them), the intention to produce a particular nonverbal expression for self-presentational purposes cannot always be successfully translated into the actual production of that expression. The literatures on people's skills at using their nonverbal behaviors to feign internal states and to deceive are reviewed as they pertain to the question of whether people can overcome the many constraints on the translation of their intentions into expressions. The issue of whether people's deliberate attempts to regulate their nonverbal behaviors can be detected by others is also considered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cross-cultural differences in children's choices, categorizations, and evaluations of truths and lies.

This study examined cross-cultural differences and similarities in children's moral understanding of individual- or collective-oriented lies and truths. Seven-, 9-, and 11-year-old Canadian and Chinese children were read stories about story characters facing moral dilemmas about whether to lie or tell the truth to help a group but harm an individual or vice versa. Participants chose to lie or to tell the truth as if they were the character (Experiments 1 and 2) and categorized and evaluated the story characters' truthful and untruthful statements (Experiments 3 and 4). Most children in both cultures labeled lies as lies and truths as truths. The major cultural differences lay in choices and moral evaluations. Chinese children chose lying to help a collective but harm an individual, and they rated it less negatively than lying with opposite consequences. Chinese children rated truth telling to help an individual but harm a group less positively than the alternative. Canadian children did the opposite. These findings suggest that cross-cultural differences in emphasis on groups versus individuals affect children's choices and moral judgments about truth and deception. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Verbal and nonverbal behavior in judgments of facilitative conditions.

Investigated the effects of different verbal counseling styles, selected nonverbal behaviors, and client sex on facilitative conditions of the counseling relationship. The verbal counseling style included an affective and a behavioral interactive communication style. The nonverbal behaviors were eye contact, smiling, head nodding, and trunk lean forward. Male counselors interviewed both male and female clients (20 undergraduates). The results demonstrate that certain nonverbal behaviors were related to the 3 facilitative conditions. However, the effects on the relationship characteristics were modified by interactions with other variables. In some instances, the nonverbal behaviors had debilitating effects rather than the facilitating effects that were expected. (42 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mutual influence in expressive behavior: Adult–adult and infant–adult dyadic interaction.

Reviews literature on the influence of speaker's expressive behaviors on another's behavioral response in adult–adult and infant–adult dyads. Expressive behaviors include noncontent speech variables; indicators of affiliation such as gaze, distance, orientation, and question intimacy; verbal disclosure; body movements; and general indices of involvement. Interspeaker influence includes both interspeaker matching and compensation in overt behavior. Matching predominates in noncontent speech, verbal disclosure, and gaze. Compensatory responses are prompted by question intimacy and proximity. Both reciprocal and compensatory responses show limits, and are attenuated and even reversed by moderator variables associated with person differences and social-normative expectations. Continuities between adult–adult and infant–adult dyads are found for vocalization and gaze. Explanations of expressive social interaction must be flexible enough to account for both compensation and matching as well as the limits to and moderators of these responses. (5? p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The assessment of credibility: An analysis of truth and deception in a multiethnic environment.

Credibility assessment involves the ability to distinguish a liar from a truthful person. In the traditional homogeneous societies, we can find some relatively strong consensus, as well as common learned indicators, that enable the participants in legal procedures to use more or less similar factors to assess the credibility of the testimonies given. Now, what about our current multiethnic societies where the different actors do not always have the same ethnic background and do not necessarily share the same cultural values? Can we find a similar consensus as well as common indicators? After examining what contemporary research tells us about the concept of credibility and its assessment, I will undertake to explain how truth and deception are distinguished in a multiethnic context, and I will look at the accuracy rates of such judgments. Are they better or worse than judgments made by people of the same ethnic background? What criteria are used? The same or different ones? In conclusion, it is suggested that familiarity with the specific aspects of different cultures can produce more adequate judgments of credibility. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Appearing Truthful Generalizes Across Different Deception Situations.

The authors investigated whether the ability to appear truthful is specific to deception situations. Male participants were interrogated after they took part in 2 high-stake deception situations, one involving a mock crime and another involving a false opinion. The videotaped interrogations from each situation were shown to independent groups of undergraduate observers. The proportion of observers who judged each participant as truthful in one situation correlated highly with the proportion of observers who judged the same participant as truthful in the other situation. This was not correlated with physiognomy judgments. Follow-up studies revealed that although the participants showed consistency in their facial, body, and paralinguistic behaviors across situations, observers' judgments seemed to be driven only by the consistency of the dynamic facial behaviors. These results are discussed in terms of the evolutionary importance of the face in communication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Nonverbal involvement and social control.

Reviews research on the role of nonverbal involvement (e.g., distance, gaze, touch, lean, orientation, paralinguistic cues, and facial expression) in the interactive function of social control (SC). The SC function describes a general goal of exercising influence to change the behavior of others. Specifically, that process is designed to produce reactions not likely in the absence of such influence. Patterns of nonverbal involvement in the service of the SC function are reviewed in the areas of status, power, and dominance; persuasion; feedback/reinforcement; deception; and impression management. The role of these patterns in the employment interview and counseling situation is addressed. In contrast to the common assumption that nonverbal behavior usually reflects a spontaneous and consistent affective reaction, this research strongly suggests that in many instances nonverbal behavior may be managed to influence the behavior of others. (127 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, 3rd edition.

Reviews the book, Clinical assessment of malingering and deception, 3rd edition by Richard Rogers (see record 2008-09622-000). Over the past 10 years, psychologists who have been engaged in clinical assessment or evaluation have become more sensitised to the fact that client variables such as noncredible performance can substantially interfere with accurate evaluation and interpretation of obtained psychological or neuropsychological test scores. The chapters in this book clearly indicate that noncredible performance and deception are common in many assessment populations, that it is difficult if not impossible to always obtain accurate information when relying on self-report data, and that objective methods exist to enhance detection of noncredible responding. The first two chapters were written by Rogers himself and set the conceptual framework for the entire text. The book is then divided into four additional sections, with chapters provided by some of the best known names in malingering and defensiveness research. In Section II, specific diagnostic issues are considered, leading with an overview of symptoms associated with deception. Section III discusses psychometric methods to assess response styles. Section IV deals with specialised methods of detection and will likely be of interest to a very limited number of psychologists working in specific fields such as corrections or forensics. Section V deals with specialised applications, including deception in children and adolescents, forensic examinations, and assessment of law enforcement personnel. Overall, this is an excellent reference book, and it certainly provides enough specific, clinically relevant information in the four chapters that flank the book to give most clinicians a good summary of the issues, available instruments, and research findings to date. The chapters dealing with specific diagnostic issues and specialised methods are likely to be referenced heavily by those who work in these specific fields and might provide a good theoretical base for individuals still in the process of clinical training. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Behavioral inhibition and electrodermal activity during deception.

Tested the assumption that the act of inhibiting ongoing behavior requires physiological work. In a guilty knowledge test (GKT) paradigm, 30 undergraduates were induced to attempt to deceive the experimenter on 2 separate occasions while electrodermal activity was measured. For 20 of the 30 Ss, overt behaviors (changes in eye movement and facial expression) were recorded during the 2nd GKT. Results indicate that the incidence of these behaviors decreased during Ss' deceptive responses. This behavioral inhibition coincided with increases in skin conductance level. In addition to suggesting nonverbal correlates of deception, findings indicate that long-term behavioral inhibition may be a factor in psychosomatic disease. (14 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Vulnerability of Older Adults to Deception in Prison and Nonprison Contexts.

Media reports frequently depict older adults as victims of deception. The public perceives these stories as particularly salient because older adults are seen as fragile victims taken advantage of because of trusting behaviors. This developmental investigation of deception detection examines older and younger adults interacting in 2 contexts, prison and the "free world," to discover whether older adults are vulnerable to deception. Younger prisoners were found to be lie biased. Older adults were better able to discriminate lies than younger adults, and this effect was localized primarily to older female adults. Findings indicate that discriminability strongly increases from younger to older age for women, whereas men do not show an improvement, as age increases, in making decisions about statement veracity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)