Saint Anselm College
American Psychological Association (APA)
Detecting
Deception - Overview
Contact: PDemers@anselm.edu
| Abstract | Results | Tables |
| Introduction | Discussion | Appendices |
| Method | References | Relevant Links |
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.
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.
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Appendix A
Script (A - Condition 1)
Script (B - Condition 1)
Script (A - Condition 2)
Script (B - Condition 2)
Script (A - Condition 3)
Script (B - Condition 3)
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
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
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.
Saint Anselm College
American Psychological Association (APA)
Detecting
Deception - Overview
Contact: PDemers@anselm.edu
Key Words: Social Psychology, Deception, Lying, Behavior
