Policemen’s and Civilians’ Beliefs About Facial Cues of Deception
The most commonly discussed nonverbal indicators in scientific literature about subjective cues to deception are gaze aversion, smiling, self-adaptors, illustrators, body movements, etc. One of the methods for studying beliefs is the closed question method (CQM). The CQM studies beliefs through written questionnaires in which facial cues are described with words. In the present study, the CQM was adapted to the study of facial expressions by using a photographic questionnaire. Indeed, instead of written descriptions in a questionnaire, we used photos of facial expressions to improve the classification of facial cues with contrastive participants (police officers and civilians). Fifty-four standardized photos of facial movements based on the facial action coding system were used as stimuli. The task was to determine whether a particular expression was more or less present during a lie. Results highlight cues perceived as more present (e.g., lip wiping) or less present (e.g., fear) during a lie. Only a few differences emerged between civilians and police officers (e.g., head lowering) suggesting that they had similar beliefs. The accuracy of police officers’ beliefs was better than chance, but remains low for such a professional. Results revealed many new beliefs about deception which can be of help in updating police training on this topic in order to decrease the number of false alarms about lies.
KeywordsFacial expressions Lie detection Belief Police officers
The authors would like to thank Chloé Pugnetti, Vincent Denault, and Frédéric Tomas for their help and their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Moreover, we would like to thank Commissioner Philippe Guichard (OCRVP), Commissioner Emmanuelle Oster (SRPT), Commissioner Bastien Barnabé (CSI) and Jean-Louis Calmon (GSO) for their support and their permissions to conduct the study in their services. Finally, we thank the police officers and the civilians who took part in the study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were done so in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Akehurst, L., Köhnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6%3c461:AID-ACP413%3e3.0.CO;2-2.Google Scholar
- Chovil, N. (2005). Measuring conversational facial displays. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 173–188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-179060-8.50012-8.Google Scholar
- Colwell, L. H., Miller, H. A., Miller, R. S., & Lyons, P. M., Jr. (2006b). US police officers’ knowledge regarding behaviors indicative of deception: Implications for eradicating erroneous beliefs through training. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12(5), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160500254839.Google Scholar
- Delmas, H., Denault, V., Rochat, N., Demarchi, S., Tijus, C., & Urdapilleta, I. (2016). Evaluation de la crédibilité des témoins: l’influence des croyances [Assessing the credibility of witnesses: The influence of beliefs]. In C. Tijus & C. Puigelier (Eds.), L’esprit au-delà du droit (pp. 205–224). Paris: Mare & Martin.Google Scholar
- Ekman, P., Friesen, W., & Hager, J. (1978/2002). Facial action coding system. Retrieved April 4, 2015, from http://face-and-emotion.com/dataface/estore/main.jsp.
- Forrest, J. A., Feldman, R. S., & Tyler, J. M. (2004). When accurate beliefs lead to better lie detection. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 764–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02569.x.Google Scholar
- Frank, M. G., & Svetieva, E. (2015). Microexpressions and deception. In M. K. Mandal & A. Awasthi (Eds.), Understanding facial expressions in communication: Cross-cultural and multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 227–242). New Delhi: Springer.Google Scholar
- Geiselman, E. R. (2012). The cognitive interview for suspects (CIS). American Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 30(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
- Giannakakis, G., Manousos, D., Chaniotakis, V., & Tsiknakis, M. (2018). Evaluation of head pose features for stress detection and classification. Paper presented at IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical & Health Informatics, Las Vegas, United States. Abstract retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8333454/, https://doi.org/10.1109/BHI.2018.8333454.
- Greuel, L. (1992). Police officers’ beliefs about cues associated with deception in rape cases. In F. Lösel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 234–239). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Hart, C. L., Hudson, L. P., Fillmore, D. G., & Griffith, J. D. (2006). Managerial beliefs about the behavioral cues of deception. Individual Differences Research, 4(3), 176–184.Google Scholar
- Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2015). Exploring the nature and origin of beliefs about deception: Implicit and explicit knowledge among lay people and presumed experts. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 125–154). New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.Google Scholar
- Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of embarrassment, amusement, and shame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179644.001.0001.Google Scholar
- Marksteiner, T., Reinhard, M.-A., Dickhäuser, O., & Sporer, S. L. (2011). How do teachers perceive cheating students? Beliefs about cues to deception and detection accuracy in the educational field. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(3), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0074-5.Google Scholar
- Sato, T., & Nihei, Y. (2006). Effects of lie-catchers’ confidence on their beliefs about deception cues. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 65, 99–108.Google Scholar
- Taylor, R., & Vrij, A. (2000). Effects of varying stake and cognitive complexity on beliefs about the cues to deception. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 3, 111–123.Google Scholar
- Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Vrij, A. (2014). La détection du mensonge: Mythes et possibilités [Lie detection: Myths and possibilities]. In M. St-Yves (Ed.), Les entrevues d’enquête: L’essentiel (pp. 237–256). Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais.Google Scholar