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.     

Need for Cognition and the process of lie detection

Four experiments investigated the influence of Need for Cognition on the process of lie detection. According to the basic assumptions of dual process models, only higher Need for Cognition leads to the use of verbal information when making judgments of veracity. People with lower Need for Cognition predominantly use stereotypical nonverbal information for their judgments. In both Experiments 1 and 2, participants saw a film in which nonverbal cues (fidgety vs. calm movements) and verbal cues (low vs. high plausibility) were manipulated. As predicted, when Need for Cognition was lower, only the nonverbal cues influenced participants' judgments of veracity. In contrast, participants with higher Need for Cognition also used the verbal cues. Experiments 3 and 4 tested the hypothesis that higher Need for Cognition leads to better discrimination of truthful from deceptive messages. Both experiments found that participants with higher Need for Cognition achieved higher accuracy at classifying truthful and deceptive messages than participants with lower Need for Cognition.     

SELF-MONITORING,REHEARSAL, AND DECEPTIVE COMMUNICATION

This study examined the effects of self-monitoring and rehearsal on the ability of observers to detect deception and on the behavioral correlates of deception. It was hypothesized that observers would be more accurate at detecting deception perpetrated by low self-monitors than by high self-monitors, with the difference particularly pronounced when messages were rehearsed. In addition, low self-monitors communicating spontaneously were expected to display greater rates of verbal and nonverbal responding than high self-monitors who planned their communications. Sixteen high and low self-monitors both lied and told the truth (either spontaneously or after 20-minute rehearsals) regarding their feelings while viewing slides of pleasant landscapes and of disfigured burn victims. Analysis of the responses of the 151 observers who made veracity judgments supported the hypothesis concerning accuracy of deception detection. Coding of 10 verbal and nonverbal behaviors revealed that unrehearsed low self-monitors displayed significantly greater pause and nonfluency rates than rehearsed high self-monitors. Additional findings are reported regarding the effects of self-monitoring, rehearsal, and truthful versus deceptive communication on the behavioral correlates of deception.     

“COME TO THINK OF IT…”

In Phase 1 of this study, communicators responded truthfully or deceptively to positive or negative interrogative probes. In Phase 2, the interviews were shown, at four levels of probe exposure, to observers who rated the communicators' eracity. In Phase 3, verbal and nonverbal cues were correlated with actual and perceived deception. Although exposure level had no effect on detection accuracy, liars and trulhtellers exposed to negative interrogative probes were judged more truthful than those exposed to positive probes. Analysis of the verbal and nonverbal cues revealed that none of the nonverbal cues relied on as indicators of deception were related to actual deception, and only one of the verbal cues (verbal content) was related to actual message veracity. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are offered.     

Detecting deception in a bluffing body: The role of expertise

Studies of deception detection traditionally have focused on verbal communication. Nevertheless, people commonly deceive others through nonverbal cues. Previous research has shown that intentions can be inferred from the ways in which people move their bodies. Furthermore, motor expertise within a given domain has been shown to increase visual sensitivity to other people’s movements within that domain. Does expertise also enhance deception detection from bodily movement? In two psychophysical studies, experienced basketball players and novices attempted to distinguish deceptive intentions (fake passes) and veridical intentions (true passes) from an observed individual’s actions. Whereas experts and novices performed similarly with postural cues, only experts could detect deception from kinematics alone. These results demonstrate a link between action expertise and the detection of nonverbal deception.     

Listening, not watching: situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception

In 4 experiments, the authors investigated the influence of situational familiarity with the judgmental context on the process of lie detection. They predicted that high familiarity with a situation leads to a more pronounced use of content cues when making judgments of veracity. Therefore, they expected higher classification accuracy of truths and lies under high familiarity. Under low situational familiarity, they expected that people achieve lower accuracy rates because they use more nonverbal cues for their veracity judgments. In all 4 experiments, participants with high situational familiarity achieved higher accuracy rates in classifying both truthful and deceptive messages than participants with low situational familiarity. Moreover, mediational analyses demonstrated that higher classification accuracy in the high-familiarity condition was associated with more use of verbal content cues and less use of nonverbal cues.     

The inhibitory spillover effect: Controlling the bladder makes better liars

The Inhibitory-Spillover-Effect (ISE) on a deception task was investigated. The ISE occurs when performance in one self-control task facilitates performance in another (simultaneously conducted) self-control task. Deceiving requires increased access to inhibitory control. We hypothesized that inducing liars to control urination urgency (physical inhibition) would facilitate control during deceptive interviews (cognitive inhibition). Participants drank small (low-control) or large (high-control) amounts of water. Next, they lied or told the truth to an interviewer. Third-party observers assessed the presence of behavioral cues and made true/lie judgments. In the high-control, but not the low-control condition, liars displayed significantly fewer behavioral cues to deception, more behavioral cues signaling truth, and provided longer and more complex accounts than truth-tellers. Accuracy detecting liars in the high-control condition was significantly impaired; observers revealed bias toward perceiving liars as truth-tellers. The ISE can operate in complex behaviors. Acts of deception can be facilitated by covert manipulations of self-control.     

DECEPTION AND AROUSAL

This study tested a physiologically based arousal theory of deceptive communication. The sympathetic activation (skin resistance) of three groups of communicators was monitored. Two of the groups, deceivers and unaroused truth tellers, paralleled the types of communicators used in earlier deception studies; and a third group, aroused truth tellers, was exposed to a noise stimulus to raise their sympathetic activation to a level comparable to deceivers. Comparison of the behavioral differences between comparably aroused deceivers and truth tellers made it possible to identify the cues unique to deception-induced arousal. Results confirmed that deceivers experienced significantly greater sympathetic activation than unaroused truth tellers. Six verbal and nonverbal behaviors reliably distinguished deceivers from unaroused truth tellers, and, most important, these same six behaviors reliably distinguished deceivers from aroused truth tellers.     

Does Participation Affect Deception Success?

Communication episodes may range from highly interactive to noninteractive. The principle of interactivity refers to the constellation of structural and experiential features associated with interactivity that systematically affect communication processes and outcomes. One such feature is degree of participation. In deceptive interchanges, senders may engage in dialogic (high participation, two‐way) or monologic (low participation, one‐way) communication. According to the principle of interactivity, dialogue should advantage deceivers relative to monologue due to increased mutuality between sender and receiver and greater opportunities for deceivers to improve their performance over time. An experiment in which friends or strangers alternated between deceiving and telling the truth to a partner under dialogue or monologue conditions tested this principle. All hypotheses received some support. Relative to monologue, dialogue created more mutuality among strangers. Dialogue also enabled deceivers to better manage their informational content, speech fluency, nonverbal demeanor, and image, resulting in less accurate deception detection by partners. These results support the interactivity principle and interpersonal deception theory, from which the principle emanated.     

Emotional deceit: False words versus false action

What speaks louder, false words or false action? Raters assessed the anxiety level of 10 actors portraying their actual anxiety level and simulated displays of high anxiety. Raters were required to base judgments on either video cues alone or audio cues alone. Findings indicate that false words speak louder than false action, with audio-based judgments generating greater judgmental error in both straight and dissembled anxiety conditions. Although raters expressed equal confidence in judgments based on either verbal or nonverbal cues, results indicated that verbal cues played a larger role in emotional deceit. Differences between real and simulated anxiety cues were delineated, suggesting ways of detecting emotional deception. Results were discussed in light of current thought regarding channel contribution in deception.     

Sender Demeanor: Individual Differences in Sender Believability Have a Powerful Impact on Deception Detection Judgments

Sender demeanor is an individual difference in the believability of message senders that is conceptually independent of actual honesty. Recent research suggests that sender demeanor may be the most influential source of variation in deception detection judgments. Sender demeanor was varied in five experiments (N = 30, 113, 182, 30, and 35) to create demeanor–veracity matched and demeanor–veracity mismatched conditions. The sender demeanor induction explained as much as 98% of the variance in detection accuracy. Three additional studies (N = 30, 113, and 104) investigated the behavioral profiles of more and less believable senders. The results document the strong impact of sender effects in deception detection and provide an explanation of the low‐accuracy ceiling in the previous findings.     

Why don't you believe me? Detecting deception in messages written by nonnative and native speakers

Detecting lies is crucial in numerous contexts, including situations in which individuals do not interact in their native language. Previous research suggests that individuals are perceived as less credible when they communicate in a nonnative compared with native language. The current study was the first to test this effect in truthful and fabricated messages written by native and nonnative English speakers. One hundred native English speakers judged the veracity of these messages, and overall, they proved less likely to believe and to correctly classify nonnative speakers' messages; differences in verbal cues between native and nonnative speakers' messages partly explained the differences in the judgments. Given the increased use of nonnative languages in a globalized world, the discrimination against nonnative speakers in veracity judgments is problematic. Further research should more thoroughly investigate the role of verbal cues in written and spoken nonnative language to enable the development of effective interventions.     

Cues to Deception in the Employment Interview

Candidates' use of deceptive impression management (IM) during the employment interview has been found to influence employment outcomes. Unfortunately, interviewers are often unable to detect when deceptive IM is used. The current study applied research on cues to deception to the employment interview context to examine which micro‐ and macro‐level behavioral cues are indicators of deceptive IM. One hundred nine individuals completed mock employment interviews. We found that interviewees who used deceptive IM exhibited restrained facial behavior (i.e., less smiling), unrestrained verbal behavior (i.e., more speaking errors, less silences), and, unexpectedly, gave off the impression of being less anxious. The results suggest that behavioral cues have promise for future efforts to increase interviewers' ability to detect deception.     

Self‐Reported Beliefs About Verbal Cues Correlate with Deception‐Detection Performance

In this study, we investigated whether people who hold more correct beliefs about verbal cues to deception are also better lie detectors. We investigated police officers and undergraduates' beliefs about (i) cues to deception via an open‐ended question and (ii) 17 specific verbal cues, after which participants were asked to judge the truthfulness of eight video fragments. Results showed that undergraduates and police officers still hold wrongful beliefs about nonverbal cues, but have better insight into verbal cues. Moreover, a better insight in verbal cues was related to an increased accuracy for identifying truthful statements, showing that verbal cues do drive credibility judgments to some extent.Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can Nonverbal Cues be Used to Make Meaningful Personality Attributions in Employment Interviews?

Purpose  This study examines the role of personality attributions in understanding the relationships between nonverbal cues and interview performance ratings. Design/methodology/approach  A structured behavioral interview was developed for identifying management potential in a large, national company. Using a concurrent design to validate the interview, managers were interviewed and the interviews were videotaped (n = 110). These videotapes were used as stimuli for raters in this study. Findings  Results indicate that raters can make personality attributions using only one channel of information and these attributions partly explain the relationships between nonverbal cues and performance measures. Furthermore, conscientiousness attributions explain the relationship between visual cues and interview ratings, extraversion attributions mediate the relationship between vocal cues and interview ratings. Neuroticism attributions had a suppressing effect for both visual and vocal cues. Implications   No matter how much an interview is structured, nonverbal cues cause interviewers to make attributions about candidates. If we face this fact, rather than consider information from cues as bias that should be ignored, interviewers can do a better job of focusing on job-related behavior and information in the interview, while realizing that the cues are providing information that must be attended to. Originality/value  This study isolated the sources of information provided to raters to either the vocal or the visual channel to examine their impact individually. A Brunswik lens model shows the potential impact of personality attributions predicting both job and interview performance ratings when both channels of information are used.     

The case of Pinocchio: teachers’ ability to detect deception

In a study with 365 teacher students, 447 teacher trainees, and 123 teachers, the ability to detect students’ deception was tested. Participants judged the credibility of videotaped students who were accused of academic dishonesty (having cheated in a test). Half of these messages were actually true (students had not cheated on the test) and half of them were deceptive (students had cheated on the test). As expected and in line with findings on the influence of expertise on the ability to detect deception from other fields, we found that the overall accuracy rate of teachers was not higher than that of teacher trainees and teacher students. Moreover, we found no effect of teaching experience (years working as a teacher) on overall detection of deception accuracy. Interestingly, teachers were found to have a stronger truth bias and therefore had a lower accuracy in detecting deceptive messages than teacher students and teacher trainees (veracity effect). While teacher characteristics accounted for very little variance, senders’ opportunity to prepare and their gender had strong effects. Detection accuracy was higher for messages where the student had no chance to prepare before being accused of cheating. Overall, independent, or experience, participants hold inaccurate beliefs about deception.     

Can Multiple Biases Occur in a Single Situation? Evidence From Media Bias Research

This study explored multiple biases—the possibility that different biases would concurrently occur in a given situation, and each would exert its influence independently on people's judgments. The study focused on media bias through nonverbal (NV) behavior, where viewers judged an interviewed politician after they viewed the interview with a nonverbally friendly or hostile interviewer. In a meta‐analysis of several replications, 2 independent biases were found: media bias (viewers rated the interviewee more favorably when the interviewer's NV behavior was friendlier); and halo effect (viewers rated the interviewee according to the degree that they personally liked him). Regression analyses indicated that these 2 biases operated independently and additively on viewers' judgments. Implications for the study of multiple biases are discussed.