Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Le Mot Juste? The Contexualization of Words by Expert Lie Detectors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Applied Issues in Investigative Interviewing, Eyewitness Memory, and Credibility Assessment

  • 2680 Accesses

Abstract

Some of the chapters in this book discuss the ways in which language samples can be analyzed to determine credibility (e.g., Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, & Fede, this volume; Griesel, Ternes, Schraml, Cooper, & Yuille, this volume). This chapter illustrates how expert lie detectors use information from a single word in discerning the truthfulness of others. These illustrations were obtained from in-depth interviews with highly accurate lie detectors (O’Sullivan & Ekman, 2004) who received scores of 80 % or more on at least two of three different lie detection tests. The three tests were not easy, since average scores on the measures are close to 50 %. Although the base rate occurrence of such expert lie detectors varies from group to group, the expert lie detectors in this analysis are at least two standard deviations above the mean in their lie detection abilities. For example, using the criterion described, no expert lie detector has been found among college students, although thousands have been examined. Although there are now a sufficient number of experts (n = 50) to aggregate their responses and compare them with their matched controls, another value of the project is the opportunity to compare the description of the lie detection enterprise that results from the efforts of a single expert with the contributions to knowledge made by scores of scientists using a wide variety of methodologies. A brief review of these methodologies is offered in order to situate the kind of information obtained from individual interviews in the broader research endeavor. This review is, of necessity, cursory. Many subtle distinctions are disregarded in the effort to describe briefly each approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Editorial note: “The project” refers to the “Truth Wizard Project”- O’Sullivan and Ekman’s research project that sought to identify expert lie detectors, who obtained highly accurate scores on at least two of three videotaped lie detection tasks.

  2. 2.

    Editorial note: The Undeutsch hypothesis states that statements based on experienced events ­differ in quantity and quality from fictitious accounts.

  3. 3.

    Editorial note: Bond and DePaulo (2008) suggest that there is very little variation in individuals’ ability to detect deception, that detection accuracy ranges no more widely than would be expected by chance, and that the most accurate judges are no more accurate than a stochastic mechanism would produce.

References

  • Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner, 25, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477–492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & Rao, S. R. (2004). Mendacity in a mobile world. In P. A. Granhag & L. Stromwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 127–147). NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, G. D. (2008). Deception detection expertise. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugental, D., Kaswan, J., & Love, L. (1970). Perceptions of contradictory meanings conveyed by verbal and nonverbal channels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 647–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., White, C. H., Afifi, W., & Buslig, A. L. S. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 669–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R. S., & Pennebaker, J. (2003). The secret life of pronouns: Flexibility in writing style and physical health. Psychological Science, 14(1), 60–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J., & Liker, J. K. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 115(3), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1988). The mind’s eye in chess. In A. M. Collins & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 461–494). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, M. A., Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Linguistic markers of psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15(10), 687–693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M. (1998). Deceiving and detecting deceit: Insights and oversights from the first several hundred studies. Invited address. Washington, DC: American Psychological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1096–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Rosenthal, R., Eisenstat, R. A., Rogers, P. L., & Finkelstein, S. (1978). Decoding discrepant nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(3), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & O’Sullivan, M. (1988). Smiles when lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 414–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O’Sullivan, M., & Scherer, K. R. (1980). Relative importance of face, body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 270–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913–920.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., Friesen, W. V., & Scherer, K. (1991). Invited article: Face, voice and body in detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(2), 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericcson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(3), 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, T. H., & deTurck, M. A. (1998). The behavioral correlates of sanctioned and unsanctioned deceptive communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(3), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, R. S., & Jenkins, L. (1979). Detection of deception in adults and children via facial expressions. Child Development, 50(2), 350–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from Daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 877–889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1429–1439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and non-verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Mast, M. S. (2007). Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm. Emotion, 7(2), 438–446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2004). Police officers’ lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely versus observing video. Police Quarterly, 7(4), 429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, C. U., & Borkenau, P. (1998). Deception and deception detection: The role of cross-modal inconsistency. Journal of Personality, 66(5), 687–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 380–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S. A., & Vrij, A. (2006). Police officers’ judgments of veracity, tenseness, cognitive load and attempted behavioral control in real-life police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test, user’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26(5), 469–480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-cried-wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1316–1327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and detecting deception. Why most people can’t “read” others, but a few can. In R. Riggio & R. Feldman (Eds.), Applications of nonverbal communication (pp. 215–253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. (2007). Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Are lie detection experts myths or realities? A response to on lie detection wizards by Bond and Uysal. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 117–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. (2008). Homeruns and humbugs: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008). Psychological Bulletin, 134, 493–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In P. A. Granhag & L. Stromwell (Eds.), Detecting deception in forensic contexts (pp. 269–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., Friesen, W., & Scherer, K. R. (1985). What you say and how you say it: The contribution of speech content and voice quality to judgments of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 54–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M., & Guilford, J. P. (1975). Six factors of behavioral cognition: Understanding other people. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12(4), 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, E. S., Levine, T. R., Harms, C. M., & Ferrara, M. H. (2002). Group and individual accuracy in deception detection. Communication Research Reports, 19(2), 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69(2), 144–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., Doucette, N. L., Woodworth, M., Earle, J., & MacNeil, B. (2008). Halfe the world knows not how the other halfe lies: Investigation of verbal and non-verbal signs of deception exhibited by criminal offenders and non-offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1995). Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockwell, P., Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1997). The voice of deceit: Refining and expanding cues to deception. Communication Research Reports, 14, 451–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soohoo, T., & O’Sullivan, M. (2001). Lie detection: Decision reasons and accuracy. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steller, M., & Koehnken, G. (1989). Criteria-based statement analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217–245). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömwell, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Undeutsch, U. (1982). Statement reality analysis. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials (pp. 27–56). Stockholm: Norsted & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2006). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal children and adults. Human Communication Research, 30, 8–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Heaven, S. (1999). Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5(3), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, G. (2007). The development of a deception detection task: The importance of emotion. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Division of Forensic Psychology, British Psychological Society, University of York, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuille, J. C. (1989). Credibility assessment. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DeFrank, R. S., Hall, J. A., Larrance, D. T., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Facial and vocal cues of deception and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 378–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In W. A. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integration of nonverbal behavior (pp. 129–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Maureen O’Sullivan

Authors
  1. Maureen O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Forensic Alliance, Main Street, Suite #503 2818, Vancouver, V5T 0C1, British Columbia, Canada

    Barry S. Cooper

  2. Gerichts- und Rechtspsychologie, Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche, Rablstraße 45, München, 81669, Germany

    Dorothee Griesel

  3. , Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, West Mall 2329, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, British Columbia, Canada

    Marguerite Ternes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Sullivan, M. (2013). Is Le Mot Juste? The Contexualization of Words by Expert Lie Detectors. In: Cooper, B., Griesel, D., Ternes, M. (eds) Applied Issues in Investigative Interviewing, Eyewitness Memory, and Credibility Assessment. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5547-9_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation