Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 95–100 | Cite as

Discrepancy as a cue to actual and perceived deception

  • Miron Zuckerman
  • Robert Driver
  • Richard Koestner


Discrepancy between information emitted by face and speech was examined in three modes of communication: truth, concealment, and deception. It was found that communications designed either to conceal or distort the truth (concealment and deception modes) appeared more discrepant than communications that revealed the truth, particularly when full speech rather than filtered speech was presented. In addition, there were weak but consistently positive correlations between discrepancy and judgment of concealment and deception. That is, senders who appeared more discrepant were more likely to be judged as concealing or distorting information, regardless of the mode in which they had actually communicated.


Social Psychology Full Speech 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Note

  1. DePaulo, B.M., Rosenthal, R., Rosenkrantz, J., & Green, C.R. Actual and perceived cues to deception. Manuscript submitted for review, University of Virginia, 1981.Google Scholar


  1. DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. Telling lies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,37, 1713–1722.Google Scholar
  2. DePaulo, B.M., Rosenthal, R., Green, C.R., & Rosenkrantz, J. Diagnosing deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and nonverbal cues.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1982,18, 433–446.Google Scholar
  3. DePaulo, B.M., Rosenthal, R., Rosenkrantz, J., & Green, C.R. Actual and perceived cues to deception: A closer look at speech.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  4. DePaulo, B.M., Zuckerman, M., & Rosenthal, R. The deception of everyday life.Journal of Communication, 1980,30, 216–218.Google Scholar
  5. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.Psychiatry, 1969,32, 216–218.Google Scholar
  6. Hemsley, G.D. Experimental studies in the behavioral indicants of deception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Rogers, P.L., Scherer, K.R., & Rosenthal, R. Content filtering human speech: A simple electronic system.Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1971,3, 16–18.Google Scholar
  8. Starkweather, J. Content-free speech as a source of information about the speaker.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956,52, 394–402.Google Scholar
  9. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 14, New York: Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. Zuckerman, M., Amidon, M.D., Bishop, S.E., & Pomerantz, S.D. Face and tone of voice in the communication of deception.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982,43, 347–357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miron Zuckerman
    • 1
  • Robert Driver
  • Richard Koestner
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of RochesterRochester

Personalised recommendations