Nonverbal Markers of Lying During Children’s Collective Interviewing with Friends
To examine nonverbal behaviors that may differentiate between lie- and truth-tellers, recent studies have relied on collective interviews (e.g., Vrij and Granhag in Appl Cognit Psychol 28(6):936–944, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3071), where participants were solicited to fake their responses about an unexperienced event. In this study, we made participants experience actual events that involved a potential rule violation, and later interviewed them collectively and unanticipatedly about these previously experienced events. Ninety same-sex preschool dyads were observed in a temptation resistance paradigm, where an adult experimenter proscribed touching of attractive toys and left the children alone. The dyads of children were later interviewed by the experimenter about how they handled this rule. Nonverbal behaviors were coded during the entire interview phase where they could lie by withholding transgression (i.e., lying by omission) and right after a target question where children chose to lie or tell the truth (i.e., lying by commission). Truth-tellers and lie-tellers showed (1) differences in response latency, looking at friend, and use of gestures right after the target question, but were (2) similar in their interactive nonverbal behaviors during the entire interview (i.e., speech transition, looking at friend, and utterance rate). This is the first study showing that nonverbal behaviors accompanying lie-telling behavior are different when a collective interview is carried out in a spontaneous deceptive context as opposed to planned deceptive contexts.
KeywordsSpontaneous lying Nonverbal indicators of lying Collective interview Lying by omission Lying by commission Dyadic context
- Audacity Team. (2012). Audacity (Version 1.3.4-beta) [Computer program]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from http://audacity.sourceforge.net/.
- Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choices in public and private life. New York, NY: Pantheon.Google Scholar
- Bond, C. F., & Fahey, W. E. (1987). False suspicion and the misperception of deceit. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00759.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2000). Discerning lies from truths: Behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strönwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). Children’s verbal turn-taking. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 391–414). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually positive affect, quality of child compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early internalization. Child Development, 66, 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00868.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liu, M., Granhag, P. A., Landstrom, S., Roos af Hjelmsater, E., Stromwall, l, & Vrij, A. (2010). ‘‘Can you remember what was in your pocket when you were stung by a bee?’’: Eliciting cues to deception by asking the unanticipated. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003010031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 5 Nov 2017.
- Serras Pereira, M., Postma, E., Shahid, S., & Swerts, M. (2014). Are you lying to me? Exploring children’s nonverbal cues to deception. In Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, Tilburg (pp. 2901–2906).Google Scholar
- Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category—ELAN and ISO DCR. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on language resources and evaluation, Marrakech.Google Scholar
- Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Vrij, A. (2002). Deception in children: A literature review and implications for children’s testimony. In H. Westcott, G. Davies, & R. Bull (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 175–194)., (Wiley’s series in the psychology of crime, policing and law) Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behavior in children and adults. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00723.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar