Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception

Liars and others An attempt to verify the hypothesis that it is humanly possible to detect deceivers Summary This article presents the results of empirical research verifying the hypothesis that it is humanly possible to detect deceivers. The theoretical basis for the research project were the assumptions of the social contract conception by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. The project was conducted in a few research stages, in which 556 people took part (221 people in the actual research). After analysis of the results, which constituted photographs and films with men participating, an answer was given to the main research question (Is there a significant difference between accuracy in identifying liars and people possessing other socially unwelcome fea-tures?). Analyses in the preliminary stages also answered the question concerning people's convictions on the harmfulness of telling a lie in social relations, as well as in their declarations concerning the ability level of identifying and remembering liars.

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2010

Over the last decade, Europe has seen a marked increase in the use of the polygraph for the detection of deception. Belgium and Finland, nowadays regularly use polygraph tests in criminal investigations, and the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have adopted its use in the treatment and monitoring of sex offenders . Still the use of the polygraph for the detection of deception has been debated in the scientific literature for ages. In this contribution we highlight the promises and perils of the use of the polygraph for the detection of deception.

Ainsworth Shakes ©2015 1 POLYGRAPH AND PSYCHOLOGY "Many factors influence how much detection apprehension will be felt. The first determinant to consider is the liar's beliefs about his target's skill as a lie catcher. If the target is known to be a pushover, a pussy-cat, there usually won't be much detection apprehension. On the other hand, someone known to be tough to fool, who has a reputation as an expert lie catcher, will instill detection apprehension." -Paul Ekman he irrefutable proof of psychology's impact in the arena of lie detection is evident via research postulated by various academics and institutions. Prominent Psychologists such as: Paul Ekman, David C. Raskin, Charles

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1996

Beliefs about behavioral clues to deception were investigated in 212 people, consisting of prisoners, police detectives, patrol police officers, prison guards, customs officers, and college students. Previous studies, mainly conducted with college students as subjects, showed that people have some incorrect beliefs about behavioral clues to deception. It was hypothesized that prisoners would have the best notion about clues of deception, due to the fact that they receive the most adequate feedback about successful deception strategies. The results supported this hypothesis. In deception research a distinction is usually made between actual and perceived indicators of deception , Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthai, 1981). Actual indicators of deception consist of nonverbal behaviors which have been found to be associated with deception. Perceived indicators of deception are nonverbal behaviors that observers associate with deception, regardless of whether such behavior is a manifestation of actual deception.

Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2013

This Focused Review expands upon our original paper (You can't kid a kidder": Interaction between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6:87). In that paper we introduced a new socially interactive, laboratory-based task, the Deceptive Interaction Task (DeceIT), and used it to measure individuals' ability to lie, their ability to detect the lies of others, and potential individual difference measures contributing to these abilities. We showed that the two skills were correlated; better liars made better lie detectors (a "deception general" ability) and this ability seemed to be independent of cognitive (IQ) and emotional (EQ) intelligence. Here, following the Focused Review format, we outline the method and results of the original paper and comment more on the value of lab-based experimental studies of deception, which have attracted criticism in recent years. While acknowledging that experimental paradigms may fail to recreate the full complexity and potential seriousness of real-world deceptive behavior, we suggest that lab-based deception paradigms can offer valuable insight into ecologically-valid deceptive behavior. The use of the DeceIT procedure enabled deception to be studied in an interactive setting, with motivated participants, and importantly allowed the study of both the liar and the lie detector within the same deceptive interaction. It is our thesis that by addressing deception more holisticallyby bringing the liar into the "spotlight" which is typically trained exclusively on the lie detector-we may further enhance our understanding of deception.

Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (CJMS), 2023

A diligent search revealed that to this date, there are scarcely any studies that have been conducted in the Philippines concerning deceptive behavior or lying. 110 undergraduate students from a private college in Metro Manila volunteered to take part in this study. A 19-item researcher-made instrument using a 6-point Likert scale was administered on the respondents. The instrument measured the respondents’ level of agreement with respect to items about (1) ease of telling whether a person is lying with respect to social relationship; (2) signs of lying as established by previous research; (3) reasons for lying; (4) effects of being lied to on one’s trust and (5) knowing the truth. The following are the statistically significant findings: (1) The female respondents believe with greater intensity that it is easier to tell whether a person is lying when the individual is an acquaintance or family member; (2) those without romantic involvement believe with more certainty that it is easier to tell whether a person is lying when the individual is a stranger; (3) the female respondents believe more strongly that a person is lying "when the person is being vague or gives few details", "if before answering my question the person repeats the question", "if the person speaks in sentence fragments", "when the person is unable to give clear details", "when the person fixes his/her hair while answering my question" and "when the person touches his/her lips while answering my question"; (4) female respondents believe to a higher degree that "a person lies to protect his self-image"; (5) the respondents with romantic involvement believe with greater intensity that "a person lies to protect his self-image" and "a person lies to get what he wants"; (6) both the female respondents and respondents with romantic involvement disagree more strongly to the statement "people who lie to me don't affect my trust because I lie too."

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983

In an extension of previous studies on deception and deception detection, the present research investigated the relations among individual differences, behavioral cues displayed when deceiving and telling the truth, and the perceptions of naive observers. Sixty-three students were measured on the Self-Monitoring Scale, the Affective Communication Test, the Personality Research Form, The Eysenck Personality Inventory, their acting ability, and their overall appearance. They were then videotaped while deceiving and truth telling, and their verbal and nonverbal cues were rated and coded. Finally, their success at creating an honest appearance was assessed by showing edited videotapes of their faces or their bodies to naive judges, with and without sound. It was found that behavioral cues could validly discriminate truthfulness from deception but that these valid cues were not necessarily used or were incorrectly used by the naive judges. Comparison of the facial 'and body conditions suggested explanations for the relative inaccuracy of faceviewing judges. In addition, key individual difference variables were found to be related to the overall display of behavioral cues, to variance in the display of cues from deceptive to truthful conditions, to overall perceptions of truthfulness, and to successful deception. The findings demonstrate the importance of including personality and social skill measures as well as nonverbal cue analyses and judges' perceptions in any attempt to understand fully the process of deception in social interaction.

Psychological …, 2003

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.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2010