Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 4–12 | Cite as

Anchoring in lie detection revisited

  • Miron Zuckerman
  • Scott A. Fischer
  • Roger W. Osmun
  • Beatrice A. Winkler
  • Lauren R. Wolfson
Article

Abstract

Previous research has shown that the human lie detector tends to interpret messages as truthful rather than as deceptive (the truthfulness bias) and to infer attitudes congruent with the content of the (sometimes deceptive) messages (over-attribution). It was hypothesized that these effects are moderated by the extent to which receivers are anchored to the verbal content of the message; that is, receivers might form an early impression of the content and fail to adjust this impression sufficiently even if the message appears false. In the present study, receivers either judged the truthfulness of the message first and the sender's attitude second, or judged the sender's attitude first and truthfulness second, or judged only the sender's attitude. We proposed that having to judge truthfulness first would interfere with the role of the verbal content as an anchor for the receiver's impression. Consistent with this rationale, the results showed that both truthfulness bias and overattribution diminished when receivers judged truthfulness first compared to when receivers judged attitudes first or judged only attitudes.

Keywords

Social Psychology Verbal Content Early Impression 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1713–1722.Google Scholar
  2. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.Psychiatry, 32, 88–106.Google Scholar
  3. Jones, E.E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to disposition.American Psychologist, 34, 107–117.Google Scholar
  4. Mosteller, F., & Bush, R.R. (1954). Selected quantitative techniques. In G. Lindzey (Ed.),Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 328–331). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Quattrone, G.A. (1982). Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 593–607.Google Scholar
  6. Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies.Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185–193.Google Scholar
  7. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Sciences, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  8. Zuckerman, M., Amidon, M.D., Bishop, S.E., & Pomerantz, S.D. (1982). Face and tone of voice in the communication of deception.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 347–357.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., Colella, M.J., & Alton, A.O. (1984). Anchoring in the detection of deception and leakage.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 301–311.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miron Zuckerman
    • 1
  • Scott A. Fischer
    • 1
  • Roger W. Osmun
    • 1
  • Beatrice A. Winkler
    • 1
  • Lauren R. Wolfson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of RochesterRochester

Personalised recommendations