Detecting Deception: The Truth About Lies
Patrick M. Demers
Saint Anselm College


 Abstract  Results  Tables
 Introduction  Discussion  Appendices
 Method  References  Relevant Links 

 
 
 

Abstract

    Recent research within the study of behavioral cues to deceptive intent used in judgments of veracity, indicates that commonly held stereotypical cues posited by initial research, such as gaze aversion, response latency, speech hesitation or error, shifting of body position and the like are associated with deception simply because they are violations of normative behavior which arouse suspicion and demand explanation.  Given this premise, the present study explores the degree to which violations of normative behavior, not stereotypically associated with the presence of deceptive intent, are detected and perceived as deceptive in nature relative to those behaviors more stereotypically paired with a desire to deceive.  Based the larger body of literature, it is hypothesized that individual’s judgments of veracity will reflect a difference between behaviors which fall within the bounds of stereotypical cues to deception, and those which are normative violations not stereotypically paired with deception.
    This study’s participants (N=30) consisted of 15 males and 15 females with a mean age of 18yrs., enrolled at a small, private, Catholic, liberal arts college in New England.  Participants were presented with a videotaped statement by an actor posing as an individual considered a suspect in a crime.  Two constructed scripts were read by the actors under three separate behavioral conditions: one operating as the control, one representing stereotypical cues to deception and one representing expectancy-violations not stereotypically associated with the presence of deception.
    A Univariate Analysis of Variance and a series of 2 (gender of suspect) x 3 (behavioral condition) Repeated Measures ANOVAs were used to statistically analyze the data.  A statistically significant effect was found for behavioral condition across all dependent variables.  The control condition was typically seen as statistically different from the stereotypical cues condition as well as the expectancy violation condition, however the expectancy-violation condition were typically statistically indistinguishable, lending support to the expectancy-violation position.

Return to Top

Introduction

       Early research in the study of deception sought to evaluate the validity of cues to deception suggested by culture and intuition.  These stereotypical cues to deception, such as gaze aversion, fidgeting, speech hesitations, and the like were supported by the findings of early research in the area of deception detection.  However, the relatively recent position of the expectancy-violation model tests the foundational root and limits of the schema individual’s use to evaluate the veracity of statements, suggesting that deception should be inferred from any nonverbal behavior that violates a norm, even normative violations not stereotypically associated with deception.  However, based the larger body of literature, it is hypothesized that individual’s judgments of veracity will reflect a difference between behaviors which fall within the bounds of stereotypical cues to deception, and those which are normative violations not stereotypically paired with deception.

Return to Top

Method
Participants

    This study’s participants (N=30) consisted of 15 males and 15 females with a mean age of 18yrs., enrolled at a small, private, Catholic, liberal arts college in New England, who registered to partake in the study in fulfillment of a requirement for an introductory psychology class, or to receive extra credit for an introductory biology class.

Materials

    The primary stimulus of the study was a series of three Digital Video Disks (DVDs), which were created by the experimenter.   Scripted statements read by a seated male or female actor who was controlled for attractiveness and was filmed against an unobtrusive solid white sheet.  The video frame captured the actor from head to waste.  Two scripts (A) and (B) were created by the experimenter (See Appendix A) for the actors to read under three separate conditions (1 or 2 or 3).  During filming the scripts were placed on a wall behind the digital camera so that they were visible to the actor but not to the camera.  The scripts described the suspect’s self-reported alibi: a brief summary of their approximate whereabouts and activities under an intentionally vague timeframe, designed to be susceptible to any potential impact of condition.  Condition (1) served as the control condition and consisted of script (A) and (B) to be acted out in the actor’s natural disposition, with no instructions to the actor denoting the scripted performance of linguistic or physical cues.  Condition (2) consisted of script (A) and (B) with instructions to the actors, embedded within the scripts, denoting the appropriate time of display and duration for normative violations stereotypically indicative of the presence of deceit, such as speech errors, hesitations, latent responses, deliberate responses, higher/lower volume, gaze aversion, and fidgeting.  Condition (3) consisted of script (A) and (B) with instructions to the actors embedded within the scripts denoting the appropriate time of display and duration for normative violations not stereotypically paired with the presence of deceit, such as closing one’s eyes, speaking with one’s hand obscuring one’s face, scratching, staring, and holding one’s right arm out to the side.  Both actors were familiarized with both scripts prior to filming in an effort to reduce prolonged eye contact with scripts.  Both actors read both scripts (A) and (B) under all three conditions (1), (2), and (3) so that the presentation of scripts could be properly counterbalanced for gender when presented.  The footage filmed was imported into a computer, edited for formal presentation, and written to DVD disk using the Pinnacle Studio® software package.   DVDs were organized by condition.  For example the DVD for condition (1) consisted of the male suspect reading script (A) under condition (1), and script (B) under condition (1), as well as the female suspect reading script (A) under condition (1) and script (B) under condition (1).  The statement segments were given innocuous labels that allowed the experimenter to know precisely what gender, condition, and script they consisted of without providing information to participants which may have influenced their ratings.  The statement label consisted of the suspects first and last initials (BH for the male or LM for the female), followed by the condition level (1 or 2 or 3), followed by the script (A or B).  For example BH1A would denote a statement by the male suspect, under condition (1) reading script (A).  The statement labels appeared on the DVD menu along with a still picture of the suspect.  The DVD menu was constructed by the experimenter so that the order of presentation could be manipulated as necessary.
    A fictional case background (See Appendix B) was created by the experimenter and given to the participants prior to the presentation of either suspect’s statement.  The case background established the context of the crime, its nature, and the approximate time it was perpetrated.  The case background informed participants how the individuals shown in the tapes were linked to the crime as potential suspects, though also informed them that they would be viewing the videotaped statements of only two of four total suspects, allowing for the possibility that the guilty party did not appear in either of the statements.
A questionnaire (See Appendix C), developed by the experimenter, was given to the participants after the viewing the entirety of each suspect’s scripted statement.  The questionnaire, consisting of nine separate questions and asked participants to rate the suspect on a 7pt Likert scale (1=Not At All to 7= A Great Deal) for each dependent measure.  Each question targeted a separate dependent measure.  The dependent measures included attractiveness, sincerity, likeability, forthcoming-ness, anxiety, trustworthiness, honesty, misleading-ness, and nervousness.
    A post-experimental questionnaire (See Appendix D), which consisted of a manipulation check, developed by the experimenter and a suspicion measure template.  The manipulation check consisted of four questions and was designed to target the participant’s cumulative reaction to the nature of both suspects’ behavior.  The questions asked participants to rate on a 7pt Likert scale the suspects behavior (1=Odd to 7=Very Normal), its consistency with normative behavior, the degree to which participants believed the suspects’ behavior was influenced by their guilt/innocence, and the extent to which specific behaviors played a role in the formulation of the participant’s impression of the suspects (1=Not At All to 7= A Great Deal).  The four questions, which comprised the manipulation check, were constructed to determine if the manipulation of the independent variable of condition was perceived by the participants as designed.

Procedures

    The study was conducted in a faculty lounge utilizing a large shared table for testing and wall mounted 27” Panasonic ® TV monitor and Go Video ® DVD player for displaying the stimulus.  Of the thirty total participants, ten were exposed to scripts read under condition (1), ten were exposed to condition (2) and ten were exposed to condition (3).  Within each ten, five were exposed to the male suspect reading script (A) and the female suspect reading script (B).  The remaining five were exposed to the male suspect reading script (B) and the female suspect reading script (A).  Within each ten, five were exposed to the male suspect’s statement first and five were exposed to the female suspect’s statement first.  Once condition, script, and order of presentation was determined, the condition appropriate DVD was then queued in the DVD player and the consent forms and pencils were placed at seating arrangements which allowed viewing of the TV with relative ease.  As participants filtered in, they were asked to have a seat until all participants had arrived.  Once all participants had arrived they were informed verbally that the study would examine judicial impressions.  Participants were then asked to read, understand and sign the informed consent form.  Once all had read and signed, the informed consent form was then collected.  At that time the case background sheet was disseminated and participants were asked to read it.  Participants indicated that they had finished reading the case background by placing it face down on the table.  Once all participants indicated they had completed the task, the lights in the room were turned off and the statement of the gender and script assigned to be presented first was shown.  Each suspect’s statement was approximately 2-3 minutes in duration.  After first suspect’s statement finished the DVD automatically returned to the main DVD menu.  The lights were then turned on and a numbered questionnaire was handed out.  Questionnaires were numbered to facilitate the proper pairing with the following questionnaire and post-experimental questionnaire.  Participants indicated they had completed rating the first suspect by placing the questionnaire face down on the table.  Once all participants indicated they had completed the questionnaire, it was then collected by the experimenter.  The lights were turned off and the statement of the remaining gender and script was selected from the main DVD menu and presented.  At the end of the second suspect’s statement the DVD again returned to the main DVD menu.  At this time the lights were turned on and the questionnaire was distributed.  Participants indicated that they had completed rating the second suspect by placing the questionnaire face down on the table.  Once all participants indicated they had completed the questionnaire, it was then collected by the experimenter.  At this time the post-experimental questionnaire was distributed.  Participants indicated they had completed the post-experimental questioner by placing it face down on the table.  Once all participants indicated they had completed the post-experimental questionnaire, it was then collected by the experimenter.  At this time the debriefing statement (See Appendix E), labeled as “feedback to participants” was distributed.  Once participants were fully debriefed, they were given credit slips, indicting their attendance of the study, and verbally thanked for their participation.

Return to Top

Results

    A Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted on each of the four questions which comprised the manipulation check across the three levels of behavioral condition.  A series of 2 (gender of suspect) x 3 (behavioral condition) Repeated Measures ANOVAs then subsequently examined the nine 7 pt. Likert scale questions which comprised the questionnaire.

Manipulation and Suspicion Check

    The suspect’s behavior under condition one (M=5.7), the control condition, was perceived as significantly more normal than condition two (M=3.5) which represented stereotypical cues to deception, and condition three (M=2.9) which represented expectancy violations (F(2,27)=43.47, p=.000).  The control condition was also seen as significantly more consistent with normative behavior (M=5.0) as compared to condition two (M=3.9) and three (M=2.8), (F(2,27)=12.33, p=.000).  Condition level did not have a significant effect on the participants’ perception of suspects’ behavior as influenced by their guilt/innocence, or the extent to which specific suspect behaviors played a role in the formulation of participant’s impressions.  These ratings remained relatively consistent across all three conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The suspicion measure yielded only one participant of mild suspicion with all other participants indicating no suspicion.  Due to the relatively mild nature of this individual’s suspicion, the individual was not excluded from the data set.

Main Dependent Measures

    For the dependent measure of attractiveness a significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)=8.86, p=.001) and gender (F(1,27)=24.66, p=.000).  Under the control condition the suspects were seen as the most attractive (M=4.75), followed by the stereotypical cues condition (M=3.75), and the expectancy violation (M=3.65).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the stereotypical cues condition (p=.005) and as well as the expectancy violation condition (p=.002), however, the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy violation condition were not statistically different from each other.  The female suspect (M=4.767) was seen as significantly more attractive than the male suspect (M=3.567).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    For the dependent measure of likeability a significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)=3.60, p=.041).  Under the control condition the suspects were seen as the most likeable (M=4.20), followed by the stereotypical cues condition (M=4.00), and the expectancy violation (M=3.55).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the expectancy violation condition (p=.037), however, the stereotypical cues condition was not seen as significantly different from the control condition or the expectancy violation condition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    For the dependent variable of anxiety a significant effect was found for condition level (F(2,27)=8.34, p=.002).  Under the stereotypical cues condition the suspects were seen as the most anxious (M=5.45) followed by condition one, the control condition (M=5.10), and the expectancy violation condition (M=4.15).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was statistically different from the expectancy violation condition (p=.02) and the stereotypical cues condition was statistically different from the expectancy violation condition (p=.001), however, the control condition and the stereotypical cues condition were not significantly different from each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    For the dependent measure of nervousness a significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)=38.54, p=.000).  Under the stereotypical cues condition the suspects were seen as the most nervous (M=5.85), followed by the expectancy violation (M=4.20) and the control conditions (M=3.55).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the stereotypical cues condition (p=.000) and as well as the expectancy violation condition (p=.058) and that the stereotypical cues condition was significantly different from the expectancy violation condition (p=.000).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    For the dependent measure of trustworthiness a significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)= 22.51, p=.000), gender (F(1,27)=9.96, p=.008), and a gender by condition interaction (F(2, 27)= 4.79, p=.017).  Under the control condition the suspects were seen as the most trustworthy (M=5.25), followed by the stereotypical cues condition (M=3.85), and the expectancy violation (M=3.55).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the stereotypical cues condition (p=.000) and as well as the expectancy violation condition (p=.000), however, the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy violation condition were not statistically different from each other.  The female suspect (M=4.47) was seen as significantly more trustworthy than the male (M=3.97).  Under the control condition the male suspect (M=5.30) was seen as slightly more trustworthy than the female (M=5.20).  However, under the stereotypical cues condition the disparity increased with the female suspect (M=4.10) being seen as considerably more trustworthy than the male (M= 3.60).  Under the expectancy violation condition the difference was the most dramatic, with the female suspect (M=4.10) seen as substantially more trustworthy then the male (M=3.00).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    For the dependent measure of forthcoming-ness a significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)=21.40, p=.000) and gender (F(1,27)=8.26, p=.008).  Under the control condition the suspects were seen as the most forthcoming (M=5.65), followed by the stereotypical cues condition (M=4.05), and the expectancy violation (M=3.85).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the stereotypical cues condition (p=.000) and as well as the expectancy violation condition (p=.000), however, the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy violation condition were not statistically different from each other.  The female suspect was seen as more forthcoming (M=4.8) than the male suspect (M=4.23).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    For the dependent measure of honesty a significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)=45.71, p=.000).  Under the control condition the suspects were seen as the most honest (M=5.30), followed by the stereotypical cues condition (M=3.80), and the expectancy violation (M=3.60).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the stereotypical cues condition (p=.000) and as well as the expectancy violation condition (p=.000), however, the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy violation condition were not statistically different from each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    For the dependent measure of sincerity a significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)=18.54, p=.000).  Under the control condition the suspects were seen as the most sincere (M=5.45), followed by the stereotypical cues condition (M=3.95), and the expectancy violation (M=3.75).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the stereotypical cues condition (p=.000) and as well as the expectancy violation condition (p=.000), however, the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy violation condition were not statistically different from each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    For the dependent measure of misleading-ness a significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)=46.34, p=.000).  Under the control condition the suspects were seen as the least misleading (M=2.75), followed by the expectancy violation (M=3.45), and the stereotypical cues condition (M=5.15).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the stereotypical cues condition (p=.000) and as well as the expectancy violation condition (p=.029).  The stereotypical cues condition was also statistically different from the expectancy violation condition (p=.000).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    A veracity index consisting of the dependent measures of trustworthiness, forthcoming-ness, honesty, sincerity, and misleading-ness was created to gain a broader prospective on the dependent measures most closely related to a direct perception of deceit (male alpha =.8847, female alpha =.7963).  The data for the dependent measure of misleading-ness was reversed on the 7pt scale to correspond with the direction of the other dependent measures used in the index.  A significant effect was found for condition (F(2,27)=61.74, p=.000) and gender (F(1,27)=11.11, p=.003), as well as a gender by condition interaction (F(2,27)=2.93, p=.015).  Under the control condition the suspects were seen as the most truthful (M=5.38), followed by the stereotypical cues condition (M=3.70), and the expectancy violation (M=3.86).  Tukey Post Hoc testing revealed that the control condition was seen as significantly different from the stereotypical cues condition (p=.000) and as well as the expectancy violation condition (p=.000), however, the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy violation condition were not statistically different from each other.  The female suspect was seen as significantly more truthful (M=4.51) than the male suspect (M=4.11).  Under the control condition the female suspect was seen as slightly more truthful (M=5.40) than the male (M=5.36).  However, under the stereotypical cues condition the disparity increased with the female suspect (M=3.82) was seen as considerably more truthful than the male (M=3.58).  Under the expectancy violation condition the difference was the most dramatic, with the female suspect (M=4.32) being seen as substantially more truthful than the male (M=3.40).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert  Table 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Summary

    A statistically significant effect was found for condition across all dependent variables.  The control condition was seen as statistically different from the stereotypical cues condition as well as the expectancy violation condition, with the exceptions of the dependent measures of likeability and anxiety where the control was statistically indistinguishable from the stereotypical cues condition.  This finding is relatively consistent with this study’s hypothesis as it indicates, with two exceptions, the perception of elevated levels of deception in both the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy-violation condition as compared to the control condition.  However, with the exceptions of anxiety, nervousness, misleading-ness, the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy violation condition were statistically indistinguishable, which is inconsistent with this study’s hypothesis.

Return to Top

Discussion

    The purpose of this study was to explore a relatively recent divide in research concerning the foundational root and limits of the schema used to evaluate the veracity of individual’s statements.  Based on the larger body of literature, it was hypothesized that individuals’ judgments of veracity would reflect a substantial difference between behaviors which fall within the bounds of stereotypical cues to deception, and those which are normative violations not stereotypically paired with deception.  Although the results of this study did indicate a generally consistent and statistically significant difference between the experimental conditions as a whole and the control condition, the results did not indicate a consistent statistically significant difference between the experimental conditions on the dependent measures examined.  Generally, the difference between the experimental conditions was statistically indistinguishable.  This finding tends to lend support to the expectancy-violation model, suggesting that deception is indeed inferred from counter-normative violations, when compared to the control group, and on such an equivalent level that it appears as statistically indistinguishable when compared with cues within stereotypical bounds (Bond & Omar, 1992).
    There were, however, specific exceptions to these general trends.  For the dependent measure of anxiety, suspects under the stereotypical cues condition and the control condition were statistically indistinguishable but together were seen as significantly more anxious than the suspects under the expectancy-violation condition.  For the dependent measure of nervousness, suspects under the stereotypical cues condition were seen as significantly more nervous than those under the expectancy-violation condition.  Anxiety and nervousness were two dependent measures designed to target the same behavioral area.  Behaviors such as fidgeting, shifting of posture, and speech hesitations, though considered stereotypical cues to deception are also considered products of anxiety.  As mentioned previously, Zuckerman et al. (1981) proposed, liars may experience greater undifferentiated arousal than truth tellers.  When these behaviors occur in a frequency beyond the normative threshold they are typically due to a heightened level of arousal in the sympathetic nervous system which commonly accompanies distressing feelings or situations.  Thus, it would make sense that suspects under the stereotypical cues condition would be perceived as more nervous or anxious given the dual nature of such cues.  Perhaps the lack of significant difference between the control condition and the stereotypical cues condition maybe explained along similar lines.  The task of providing a deposition on film is inherently uncomfortable so perhaps even normal levels of unscripted fidgeting and shifting of posture under the control condition increased to levels statistically indistinguishable from the scripted stereotypical cues condition.
    For the dependent measure of misleading-ness, suspects under the stereotypical cues condition were seen as more misleading than the suspects under the expectancy-violation condition.  According to the expectancy-violation model, perceivers tend to accept nonverbal behaviors that are expected, while unexpected behaviors trigger further scrutiny.  The only other statistically significant dependent measure between the stereotypical cues condition and the expectancy-violation condition was the previously mentioned nervousness/anxiety dependent measure, in which suspects under the stereotypical cues condition were seen as significantly more nervous/anxious than under the expectancy violation condition.  Perhaps this heightened level of perceived nervousness/anxiety of suspects under the stereotypical cues condition played a part in participants’ further scrutiny of unexpected behaviors, leading to higher levels of nervousness/anxiety to be perceived as conciliatory or misleading in nature.  This may in fact explain why cues to anxiety are present in the stereotypical cues to deception outlined in early research.
Within the dependent measure of likeability the control was statistically indistinguishable from the stereotypical cues condition.  This study’s manipulation check indicated that the expectancy-violation condition was perceived as the most inconsistent with normative behavior as compared to the control and the stereotypical cues condition.  When individuals judge another’s potential likeability they often evaluate that individual from a “similar-to-me” perspective (Heilman, 1999).  It would make sense, then, that if most individuals see themselves as relatively normal, they would rate individuals that displayed behavior more consistent with normative behavior as potentially more likeable.
    Despite efforts to control for the attractiveness of the male and female suspects prior to beginning the study, a significant effect for gender was found for the dependent measures of attractiveness, trustworthiness, forthcoming-ness, as well as for the index of veracity.  Relevant literature, while not specific to gender’s effect within the context of the contrived conditions of this study, does shed some light on the possible impact of gender roles, stereotypes, and schemas.  Within the dependent measure of attractiveness the female was seen as significantly more attractive.  The concept of attractiveness is not narrowed in the questionnaire to specific dimensions of attractiveness, but is potentially done so by participant’s preconceived notions of what it is for males and females to be attractive (Heilman, 1999).  Stereotypically the physical facet of attractiveness is culturally emphasized within the female gender role (Heilman, 1999).  While the physical facet of attractiveness is present within what it means for a male to be attractive, its relative importance is comparatively diminished by other components of attractiveness such as social capital and standing (Heilman, 1999).  The results seem to indicate that this question became one of physical attractiveness given the absence of such other information which would contribute to its formulation.
    Within the dependent measure of trustworthiness the female was seen as significantly more trustworthy than the male.  However, the ANOVA indicated the presence of a gender x condition interaction where under the control condition the male suspect was seen as slightly more trustworthy than the female.  Under the stereotypical cues condition the disparity increased and the female suspect was seen as considerably more trustworthy than the male.  Under the expectancy violation condition the difference was the most dramatic and the female was seen as substantially more trustworthy than the male.  One potential explanation for this disparate result is the fact that most crimes of the nature examined here, larceny of a value exceeding five-hundred dollars, is perpetrated by males (Lopez, 2002).  Perhaps, the more general statistic that males are more likely to be perpetrators of crime than females may have been taken into account consciously or as contained inherently within a representativeness heuristic or stereotype (Lopez, 2002).  It is more difficult to place trust in individuals that statistically most often break that trust within this context.  The gender x condition interaction, however, does suggest that additional factors related to the interplay between gender and condition were at work here.
    Within the veracity index the female suspect was seen as significantly more truthful than the male suspect.  The ANOVA once again revealed the presence of a gender x condition interaction.  Under the control condition the female suspect was seen as slightly more truthful than the male.  Under the stereotypical cues condition the disparity increased and the female suspect was seen as considerably more truthful than the male.  Under the expectancy violation condition the difference was the most dramatic, with the female being seen as substantially more truthful than the male.
    Similarities are evident in the results of the statistical analyses of the dependent measure of trustworthiness and the index of veracity.  In both, a gender x condition interaction was found, and in both the most drastic disparity between male and female suspect ratings occurred under the expectancy-violation condition, possibly suggesting that some facet of the schema used to evaluate the veracity of individual’s statements is most comparatively lenient toward females.  As mentioned previously Kappas, Hess, & Scherer (1991) found that the greater the cognitive challenges involved in lying, relative to truth telling, resulted in more frequent and pronounced hand movements to accompany and illustrate speech (Kappas, Hess, & Scherer,1991).  Females according to (Heilman, 1999) are more likely than males to accompany their communications with the display of more frequent and prominent gesture, often embodied in the paralinguistic use of hand motion.  Perhaps as a result of this elevated normative level of gesture, females are afforded a relatively elevated level of leniency in the expectancy-violation of related behaviors that males are simply not.  However, these possible explanations for the gender x condition trend are speculatory and tentative at best.
    The implications of these results suggest that the present study was successful in capturing a behavioral quality or qualities in both experimental conditions that was perceived as indicative of deception, when compared to the control condition.  However, the present study was unable to find a statistically significant difference between the relative impact of behavioral cues stereotypical of deception and those which represent violations of normative expectancies.  This may mean that either no significant difference does in fact exist, or that the dependant measures used in the present study were unable to find the distinction.  While these interesting findings should be more finitely tested in future research, it is important to keep in mind the inherent limitations of the present study when attempting to generalize its results to the real world.  By using a sample of connivance and non-random selection from an already narrowed and homogeneous population the study’s generalize-ability is concurrently limited.
    Given that there was limitation to this research, there is great importance within the questions which it served to raise and the direction that it embarked on.  The present study was an attempt to explore a gap in the literature surrounding behavioral cues to deception.  The present study was aimed at uncovering the fundamental root of the veracity judgment process by examining comparatively the two distinct positions which have emerged from previous research.  The limited results of the present study suggest that the gender of suspects may play a significant role when considering the impact of various types of behavioral cues.
    Future research is needed on the illusive phenomenon captured within the present study’s gender x condition interaction.  This future research may allow the scientific community to more fully appreciate the nature of its impact.  The present study could be used as a framework for future research, retooled with dependant measures designed to dissect this specific area.  Future research may also wish to explore the relative impact of normative expectancy violations in increasing degrees of severity as the expectancy violations implemented within the present study were intentionally mild in nature.
    Although research has uncovered no one set of behaviors that accompany every deception attempt consistently, perceivers seem have a naive faith in the existence of telltale deception cues (Kraut, 1980).  Wanting to believe that lies are obvious, they may miss the subtle forms of evidence that in fact denote deceit and falsely infer deception from behaviors that stand out (Bond & Omar, 1992).  Perhaps the most important point to consider when attempting to explore the fundamental root of the veracity judgment process by examining comparatively the stereotypical, and expectancy-violation cues positions is that the expectancy violation model does not invalidate the cues suggested by the stereotypical position, but rather sheds new light on its foundational nature.

Return to Top

References

Baskett, G. & Freedle, R. (1974). Aspects of language pragmatics and the social perception of  lying.
    Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 117-131
Bell, K. L. & DePaulo, B. M. (1996). Liking and lying. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 243-266.
Bond, C.F. & Omar, A. (1992) Fishy-Looking Liars: Deception Judgment from Expectancy Violation,
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 21-37.
Buller, D. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory,3, 203-242.
DePaulo, B. M. & Bell, K. L. (1996). Truth and investment: Lies are told to those who care.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 703-716.
DePaulo, B. M., LeMay, C. S. & Epstein, J. A. (1991). Effects of importance of success and expectations for
    success on effectiveness at deceiving. Personality and Social  Psychology Bulletin, 17, 14-24.
DePaulo, B. M. & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception.
    Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249-267.
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32,  88-106.
Ekman, P. & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.
Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M. & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263-266.
Ellsworth, P. C. & Langer, E. J. (1976). Staring and approach: An interpretation of the stare as a nonspecific activator.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 117-122.
Heilman, M.E. (1999). Attractiveness and Corporate Success: Different Causal Attributions for   Males and Females.
    Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 379-388
Kappas, A., Hess, U. & Scherer, K. R. (1991). Voice and emotion.  In R. S. Feldman & B. Rime (Eds. ),
    Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior(200-238). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kraut, R. E. (1980). Behavioral roots of person perception: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen.
       Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,   784-798.
Kurasawa, T. (1988). Effects of contextual expectations on deception-detection.
    Japanese Psychological Research, 30, 114-121.
Lopez, V. A. (2002) Influences of Beliefs and Values on Male Adolescents' Decision to Commit Violent Offenses.
    Psychology ofMen and Masculinity, 3, 28-40
Mahl, G. F. (1987). Explorations in nonverbal and vocal behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Malone, B. E., DePaulo, B. M., Adams, R. B. & Cooper, H. (2002). Perceived cues to deception:
    A meta-analytic review. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
Meissner, C. A. & Kassin, S. M. (2002). "He's guilty!": Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception.
    Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.
Pontari, B. A. & Schlenker, B. R. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on self-presentation: Can cognitive busyness
    help as well as harm social performance?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1092-1108.
Roney, C. J., Higgins, E. T. & Shah, J. (1995). Goals and framing: How outcome focus influences motivation and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,   1151-1160
Scherer, K. R. (1986). Vocal affect expression: A review and a model for future research.
    Psychological Bulletin, 99, 143-165.
Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Translating actions into attitudes: An identity-analytic approach to the
    explanation of social conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 193-  247.
Slivken, K. E. & Buss, A. H. (1984). Misattribution and speech anxiety. Journal of Personality
    and Social Psychology, 47, 396-402.
Sparks, G. G. & Greene, J. O. (1992). On the validity of nonverbal indicators as measures of physiological arousal.
    Human Communication Research, 18, 445-471.
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Vrij, A. & Graham, S. (1997). Individual differences between liars and the ability to detect lies.
    Expert Evidence: The International Digest of Human Behaviour, Science and Law, 5, 144-148.
Vrij, A. & Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer.
    Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187-203.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M. & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception.
    In L. Berkowitz (Ed. ),Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 14,   pp. 1-59). New York: Academic Press.

Return to Top

Tables

Table 1

Mean Level of Normalcy for Manipulation Measure of Condition

Condition                                        M          SEM            F
______________________________________________________
Perception of Suspects’ Behavior                                     43.47***

Control                                             5.70       .21344
Stereotypical Cues                             3.50       .22361
Expectancy Violation                        2.90       .23333
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perception of Suspects’ Behavioral Consistency with Normative Behavior
                                                                                        12.33***
Control                                             5.00        .25820
Stereotypical Cues                             3.90        .40689
Expectancy Violation                        2.80        .24944
______________________________________________________
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of normalcy
 

Table 2

Mean Level of Attractiveness for Main Effects of Condition and Gender

Condition                                        M          SEM         F
_________________________________________________
Control                                             4.75       .204         8.86**
Stereotypical Cues                             3.75       .204
Expectancy Violation                        3.65       .204
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender
Male                                                 3.567       .169       24.66***
Female                                             4.533       .135
_________________________________________________
** p<.01
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of attractiveness
 

Table 3

Mean Level of Likeability for the Main Effect of Condition

Condition                                        M          SEM       F
_______________________________________________
Control                                             4.20       .176       3.60*
Stereotypical Cues                             4.00       .176
Expectancy Violation                        3.55       .176
_______________________________________________
*p<.05
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of likeability
 

Table 4

Mean Level of Anxiety for the Main Effect of Condition

Condition                                        M          SEM          F
_________________________________________________
Control                                             5.10       .233          8.34**
Stereotypical Cues                             5.45       .233
Expectancy Violation                        4.15       .233
_________________________________________________
** p<.01
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of anxiety
 

Table 5

Mean Level of Nervousness for Main Effect of Condition

Condition                                        M          SEM        F
________________________________________________
Control                                             3.55       .191     38.54***
Stereotypical Cues                             5.85       .191
Expectancy Violation                        4.20       .191
________________________________________________
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of nervousness
 

Table 6

Mean Level of Trustworthiness for Main Effects of Condition, Gender
and Gender x Condition Interaction

Condition                                        M          SEM        F
_________________________________________________
Control                                             5.20       .191        22.51***
Stereotypical Cues                             3.85       .191
Expectancy Violation                        3.55       .191
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender                                                                         9.98**
Male                                                  3.967      .134
Female                                              4.467      .138
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Control                                                                         4.79*
Male                                                  5.30        .232
Female                                              5.20        .239
Stereotypical Cues
Male                                                  3.60        .232
Female                                              4.10        .239
Expectancy Violation
Male                                                  3.00        .232
Female                                              4.10        .239
____________________________ _____________________
*p<.05
** p<.01
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of trustworthiness
 

Table 7

Mean Level of Forthcoming-ness for Main Effects of Condition and Gender

Condition                                        M          SEM       F
________________________________________________
Control                                             5.65       .213       21.41***
Stereotypical Cues                             4.05       .213
Expectancy Violation                        3.85       .213
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender
Male                                                  4.233      .174      8.26**
Female                                              4.800      .140
_________________________________________________
** p<.01
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of forthcoming-ness
 

Table 8

Mean Level of Honesty for Main Effect of Condition

Condition                                        M          SEM       F
_______________________________________________
Control                                             5.30       .137       45.71***
Stereotypical Cues                            3.80       .137
Expectancy Violation                        3.60       .137
_______________________________________________
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of honesty
 

Table 9

Mean Level of Sincerity for Main Effect of Condition

Condition                                        M          SEM      F
_______________________________________________
Control                                             5.45       .216     18.54***
Stereotypical Cues                             3.95       .216
Expectancy Violation                        3.70       .216
_______________________________________________
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of sincerity
 

Table 10

Mean Level of Misleading-ness for Main Effect of Condition

Condition                                        M          SEM       F
________________________________________________
Control                                             2.75       .181       46.34***
Stereotypical Cues                             5.15       .181
Expectancy Violation                        3.45       .181
________________________________________________
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of misleading-ness
 

Table 11

Mean Level of Veracity for Main Effects of Condition, Gender,
and Gender x Condition Interaction

Condition                                        M          SEM        F
_________________________________________________
Control                                             5.38       .118       61.74***
Stereotypical Cues                             3.70       .118
Expectancy Violation                        3.86       .118
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender                                                                        11.11**
Male                                                  4.113      .093
Female                                              4.513      .089
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control                                                                        4.93*
Male                                                  5.36         .232
Female                                              5.40         .239
Stereotypical Cues
Male                                                  3.58         .232
Female                                              3.82         .239
Expectancy Violation
Male                                                  3.40         .232
Female                                              4.32         .239
_________________________________________________
*p<.05
** p<.01
***p<.001
Note: Greater numerical value indicates higher level of veracity

Return to Top

Appendices

Appendix A

Script (A - Condition 1)

    Ah, let me see….last Thursday.  Yeah…ok, well I got out of my 4 o’clock Tuesday/Thursday and headed down to the café to meet some of my friends for dinner like we always do.  I’m sure the food was bad, like it always is…not sure what I had exactly.  But anyways, it was probably around 5:30ish by the time I actually sat down to eat and it usually takes us a good half-hour or so to eat and talk about the day.  Then…..after dinner I walked with my friends back to the dorm and put my stuff away from the day…you know…books and stuff and cleaned up the room for a bit.  I turned on the news and caught up with things and I laid down on my bed for a few minutes to relax.  I guess around 6:20pm I headed over to Poisson to print out a paper that I had on saved on disk.  Yeah, when I got to the computer lab there was nobody working and no one at the computers, it was a ghost town.  So…I put my disk in the computer and finally figured out how to get around having the printer use both sides of the page.  I picked up my paper and stapled it together.  I popped out my disk and started to leave but wanted to check my email real quick.  I put my disk down and typed in my password and stuff.  There was nothing new.  I looked at the clock and realized that I needed to switch my laundry over before someone pulled it out and tossed it on the ground.  I figured the forty-five minutes in the dryer would give me some time to get some reading done and just read right there.  I threw my laundry back in my room and headed up to the pub with my roommates to meet some friends.

Script (B - Condition 1)

    Ok…so on Thursdays I have my internship at Fleet until 5.  On my way home I remembered we were out of milk so I stopped by the store to pick up a few things.  I stopped off at my apartment but no one was back from class yet, so I put the groceries away and I think it was around 6pm by then.  Then my cell phone rang and it was a friend of mine who lives in Hillary.  I borrowed money off him a few days ago and he hinted at the fact that he wanted it back.  I drove down to the ATM and took out money to pay him back.  My receipt says that I was there at 6:06.  Umm…then I drove over to Hillary and parked in front of Poisson.  I called him and told him I was out front and he came down to open the door.  I think this was around 10 after 6.  We went up to his room and shot the breeze for a little while, talking about his problems with his girlfriend.  I was there for a good twenty minutes or so then I decided to head out.  As soon as I got to the door I spotted a ticket on my windshield.  Yeah, I wasn’t too happy about that.  This was my third ticket this semester, so I decided to take a drive to blow off some steam.  I ended up driving to Lake Massabesic and skipping a few rocks in frustration.  7:30 I think or quarter of 8 I got back to campus and went to the Coffee Shop with my roommates.

Script (A - Condition 2)

    Ah, let me see (Pause) .last Thursday. (Pause) Yeah (hesitation)…ok, well I got out of my 4 o’clock Tuesday/Thursday and headed down to the café to meet some of my friends for dinner like we always do.  I’m sure the food was bad, like it always is (fake smile/laugh)…not sure what I had exactly (smirk).  But anyways, it was probably around (hesitation) (gaze aversion) (fidgeting) 5:30ish by the time I actually sat down to eat and it usually takes us a good half-hour or so to eat and talk about the day.  Then…..after dinner (pause) (hesitation) I walked with my friends back to the dorm and put my stuff away from the day…(faster) you know…books and stuff (laugh) and cleaned up the room for a bit.  I turned on the news (pause) and caught up with things and I laid down on my bed for a few minutes to relax.  I guess around (hesitation) (gaze aversion) 6:20 I guess I headed over to Poisson ( faster) to print out a paper that I had on saved on disk.  Yeah, (fidgeting) (hesitation) when I got to the (faster/rushed) computer lab there was nobody working and no one at the computers, it was a ghost town (awkward laugh).  (shift of position) So…I put my disk in the computer and finally figured out how to get around having the printer use both sides of the page (awkward laugh).  I popped out my (faster) disk and started to leave but wanted to check my email real quick.  I put my disk down and typed in my password and stuff.  There was nothing new (facial expression).  I looked at the clock (gaze aversion/hesitation) and realized that I needed to switch my laundry over before someone pulled it out and tossed it on the ground (smirk).  I figured the forty-five minutes in the dryer would give me some time to get some reading done (deliberate) and just read right there.  I threw my laundry back in my room and headed up to the pub with my roommates to meet some friends.  Must have been a little after 7.

Script (B - Condition 2)

    Ok (pause)…so on Thursdays (pause) (hesitation) (faster, deliberate) I have my internship at Fleet until 5.  On my way (pause) home I remembered we were out of milk (hesitation) so I stopped by the store to pick up a few things. (Pause) I stopped off at my apartment (pause) but (faster) no one was back from class yet, so I put the groceries away and I think it was around (hesitation) 6 by then.  Then my cell phone rang and it was a friend of mine who lives in Hillary.  (Fidget/long pause) I borrowed money off him a few days ago and he (hesitation) hinted ( faster) at the fact that he wanted it back.  I drove down to the ATM and took out money to pay him back.  (Loud/Deliberate) My receipt says that I was there at 6:06 pm.  Umm…(pause) then I drove over to Hillary and parked in front of Poisson.  (Fidget) I called him and told him I was out front (pause) and he came down to open the door.  I think this was around (hesitation/pause) 10 after 6.  We went up to his room and shot the breeze for a little while, talking about his problems with his girlfriend (long pause).  I was there for a good (hesitation/pause) twenty minutes or so (fidgeting/fast) then I decided to head out.  As soon as I got to the door I spotted a ticket on my windshield.  Yeah, I wasn’t too happy about that (awkward smirk/laugh).  This was my third ticket this semester (gaze aversion, fidgeting, pause), so I decided to take a drive to blow off some steam. (Long pause)  (fast) I ended up driving to Lake Masabesic (pause) and skipping a few rocks in frustration. (Long pause)  7:30 I think or (hesitation) quarter of 8 I got back to campus and went to the Coffee Shop with my roommates.

Script (A - Condition 3)

    (Face in Hand) Ah, let me see….last Thursday.  Yeah…ok, well I got out of my 4 o’clock Tuesday/Thursday and headed down to the café to meet some of my friends for dinner like we always do.  I’m sure the food was bad, like it always is…not sure what I had exactly.  But anyways, it was probably around 5:30ish by the time I actually sat down to eat and it usually takes us a good half-hour or so to eat and talk about the day.  Then…..after dinner I walked with my friends back to the dorm and put my stuff away from the day…you know…books and stuff and cleaned up the room for a bit.  (Eyes Closed) I turned on the news and caught up with things and I laid down on my bed for a few minutes to relax.  I guess around 6:20pm I headed over to Poisson to print out a paper that I had on saved on disk.  (Blinking) Yeah, when I got to the computer lab there was nobody working and no one at the computers, it was a ghost town.  So…I put my disk in the computer and finally figured out how to get around having the printer use both sides of the page.  I picked up my paper and stapled it together.  I popped out my disk and started to leave but wanted to check my email real quick.  I put my disk down and typed in my password and stuff.  There was nothing new.  I looked at the clock and realized that I needed to switch my laundry over before someone pulled it out and tossed it on the ground.  I figured the forty-five minutes in the dryer would give me some time to get some reading done and just read right there.  I threw my laundry back in my room and headed up to the pub with my roommates to meet some friends.

Script (B - Condition 3)

    (Scratching head) Ok…so on Thursdays I have my internship at Fleet until 5pm.  On my way home I remembered we were out of milk so I stopped by the store to pick up a few things.  I stopped off at my apartment but no one was back from class yet, so I put the groceries away and I think it was around 6pm by then.  Then my cell phone rang and it was a friend of mine who lives in Hillary.  I borrowed money off him a few days ago and he hinted at the fact that he wanted it back.  I drove down to the ATM and took out money to pay him back.  My receipt says that I was there at 6:06 pm.  (Staring) Umm…then I drove over to Hillary and parked in front of Poisson.  I called him and told him I was out front and he came down to open the door.  I think this was around 10 after 6.  We went up to his room and shot the breeze for a little while, talking about his problems with his girlfriend.  I was there for a good twenty minutes or so then I decided to head out.  As soon as I got to the door I spotted a ticket on my windshield.  Yeah, I wasn’t too happy about that.  (Arm out) This was my third ticket this semester, so I decided to take a drive to blow off some steam.  I ended up driving to Lake Masabesic and skipping a few rocks in frustration.  7:30 I think or quarter of 8 I got back to campus and went to the Coffee Shop with my roommates.

Appendix B

Case Background

    During the early evening hours of Thursday October 7th, 2004 two computer systems were reported stolen from the Academic Computer Center (ACC) Lab located within Poisson Hall.  The Office of Safety and Security took the report from a work-study student who had arrived to work only to find that the employee whom he was to relieve had failed to report for work that day, leaving the lab unmonitored for the duration of that shift.  Initial investigation by Campus Security, in conjunction with the Goffstown Police, revealed the following preliminary evidence.  The crime had occurred within the hours during which the lab had been left unattended: 6pm to 7:30pm.  The crime had not been directly witnessed by any students or faculty who were available as witnesses.  The suspect pool has been narrowed down to four persons by the Goffstown Police Detective assigned to this case.
    You will be viewing the videotaped deposition of two of these four suspects today.  One individual was identified as a suspect based on the discovery of various personal effects, which were linked to that individual, found in the computer lab strewn in a haphazard and unusual manner.  The other individual was identified as a suspect based on a parking citation which was issued October 7th at 6:17pm in violation of a no parking zone located adjacent to Poisson Hall.  The suspects were asked to account, to the best of their ability, their actions and whereabouts during the early evening hours of October 7th.
 
 

Appendix C

1.) How attractive did you find the suspect?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7

2.) How sincere did you find the suspect?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7
3.) How likeable did you find the suspect?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7

4.) How forthcoming did you find the suspect?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7

5.) How anxious did you find the suspect?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7
6.) How trustworthy did you find the suspect?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7

7.) How honest did you find the suspect?

 Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7

8.) How misleading did you find the suspect?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7

9.) How nervous did you find the suspect?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7
 
 

Appendix D

Post-Experimental Questionnaire

Based on your overall impressions of both depositions please rate the following…

1.) How did you perceive the suspects’ behavior?

Very Odd                                                                   Very Normal
    1           2            3            4            5           6             7
 

2.) How consistent with normative behavior did you find the suspects’ behavior to be?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7

3.) To what degree do you think the suspects’ behavior was influenced by their guilt/innocence?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5            6            7

4.) To what extent did specific behaviors play a role in the formulation of your impression?

Not At All                                                                 A Great Deal
     1             2           3            4           5           6            7
 

Please answer the following questions in sentence form…

1.) What did you think the study was about?

2.) Did the study have to do with anything other then what the experimenter told you? (Yes/No)

 -If yes, what?

3.) Did this effect your behavior in anyway? (Yes/No)

 -If yes, how?

Appendix E

Feedback to participants:

    Thank you for being an active participant in this research study.  Your completely confidential answers will be used in aggregate form to explore a divide in recent research regarding the behavioral characteristics which individuals identify as indicators of deceptive intent.  Recent research within the study of cues to deceptive behaviors used in judgments of veracity, indicates that commonly held stereotypical cues posited by initial research, such as gaze aversion, response latency, speech hesitation or error, shifting of body position and the like are associated with deception because they are simply violations of normative behavior which arouse suspicion and demand explanation.  Given this premise, the present study endeavors to explore the degree to which normative violations which are not stereotypically associated with the presence of deception are perceived as cues to deception relative to the violation of normative behavior more stereotypically paired with deceptive intent.
    You were shown a male and female subject who was trained to display one of three conditions during their scripted statement: traditional cues paired with deception, non-traditional normative violations (e.g. closing one’s eyes, holding one arm forward, or raising the left shoulder to the left ear during a statement), or a control condition in which the actors displayed normal behaviors.  The questions you answered about the truth and creditability of the actor’s statements will help me better understand the nature of any effects of these behavioral cues.  I am expecting that normative violations, even those not stereotypically paired with deceptive intent, will reduce the perceived veracity of the actor’s statements, yet still be seen differently then more traditional cues.
    It is important to note that the answers you provided are in no way a reflection of you as an individual and do not assess any personality traits.  Your answers merely allow me to explore any impressions you may have formed as a result of exposure to certain types of behavior.  All impressions are valid.
    Because this is an ongoing research study, we are enlisting your aid in maintaining the integrity of the research.  Knowing the intent of the study from the start could affect an individual’s motivations in the answering of questions.  I ask that you not divulge or discuss the details of this study until the end of October.  Thank you again for your help.

Return to Top

Relevant Links

Saint Anselm College
American Psychological Association (APA)
Detecting Deception - Overview
Contact: PDemers@anselm.edu


Return to Top








Key Words: Social Psychology, Deception, Lying, Behavior