Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 41–52 | Cite as

How People Really Suspect and Discover Lies

  • Eric Novotny
  • Zachary Carr
  • Mark G. Frank
  • S. B. Dietrich
  • Timothy Shaddock
  • Megan Cardwell
  • Andrea Decker
Original Paper

Abstract

Previous research suggested that real-world lies are detected through hard evidence, such as physical evidence or a direct confession, and not via nonverbal clues. However, we argue that discovering a lie is a process, and nonverbal clues are an important source of information that can induce suspicion, which then triggers the search for hard evidence. We replicated an original study suggesting the irrelevance of nonverbal clues, but experimentally manipulated the wording of the critical question as ‘discovering’ a lie versus ‘suspecting’ a lie. A second study was conducted that further manipulated the phrasing to ask about ‘events’ versus ‘clues’ that led one to detect the lie. Results of both studies showed that those asked about suspecting a lie cited nonverbal behaviors significantly more often than those asked about discovering a lie. Thus, in contrast to previous research, these findings suggest the importance of behavioral clues (e.g. verbal and nonverbal behavior), specifically in the early stage of lie detection.

Keywords

Deception Nonverbal cues Lying Discovering Suspecting 

References

  1. Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner, 15(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
  2. Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., Reimer, T. O., & McCluskey, J. D. (2012). The gap between reality and research: Another look at detecting deception in field settings. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35(4), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36(3), 423–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01382.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond, C. F., Omar, A., Pitre, U., Lashley, B. R., Skaggs, L. M., & Kirk, C. T. (1992). Fishy-looking liars: Deception judgment from expectancy violation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 969–977. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.969.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17(2), 232–265. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00232.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.129.1.74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekman, P. (1985/2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, marriage, and politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  9. Frank, M. G., & Svetieva, E. (2013). Deception. In D. Matsumoto, M. Frank, & H. S. Hwang (Eds.), Nonverbal communication: Science and applications (pp. 121–144). Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. O’Sullivan, M., Frank, M. G., Hurley, C. M., & Tiwana, J. (2009). Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. Law and Human Behavior, 33(6), 530–538. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In P. Granhag & L. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 269–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Park, H. S., Levine, T., McCornack, S., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69(2), 144–157. doi: 10.1080/714041710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schul, Y., Mayo, R., & Burnstein, E. (2008). The value of distrust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1293–1302. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Susskind, J. M., Lee, D. H., Cusi, A., Feiman, R., Grabski, W., & Anderson, A. K. (2008). Expressing fear enhances sensory acquisition. Nature Neuroscience, 11(7), 843–850. doi: 10.1038/nn.2138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121. doi: 10.1177/1529100610390861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14(1), 59. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.University at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations