Advertisement

“... and Nothing but the Truth”

How Well Can Observers Detect Deceptive Testimony?
  • Gerald R. Miller
  • Joyce E. Bauchner
  • John E. Hocking
  • Norman E. Fontes
  • Edmund P. Kaminski
  • David R. Brandt
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 2)

Abstract

Issues regarding witness credibility are a crucial aspect of most, if not all, courtroom trials. Since factual information and evidence are necessarily incomplete and contradictory, “those charged with decision-making, whether they may be judges or jurors, must not only weigh the information and evidence, but must also evaluate the veracity of the opposing evidential and informational sources” (Miller & Boster, 1977, p. 28). Sometimes assessments of credibility can be made by comparing a witness’s testimony with that of other witnesses; for example, if six people observe a crime, and five of the six identify the defendant as the culprit while the sixth does not, then unless there are strong grounds for doubting the veracity of the five consistent witnesses, the sixth witness’s testimony will typically be discounted as stemming from error or even deliberate distortion. On other occasions, credibility judgments may hinge on extrinsic factors associated with the witness; for example, if it can be shown that a witness’s testimony is self-serving, then it is likely to be viewed more skeptically than testimony free of self-serving motives, or particularly, testimony diametrically opposed to the witness’s self-interest.

Keywords

Accuracy Score Nonverbal Behavior Total Information Nonverbal Information Credibility Judgment 
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. Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1969–1970, 30, 563–576.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, D. R. Listener propensity to counterargue, distraction, and resistance to persuasion. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Communication Association, Portland, Oregon, April, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Breitrose, H. S. The effects of distraction in attenuating counterarguments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1966.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S. The motivation of behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  6. Danowski, J. Organizing and communicating. In J. Shubert (Ed.), Human communication: Concepts, principles, and skills. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1974. Pp. H1 - H39.Google Scholar
  7. Doms, J. W. Persuasion as a function of distraction and counterarguing. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles, 1967.Google Scholar
  8. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 1969, 63, 88–106.Google Scholar
  9. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. Detecting deception from the body and face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 288–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Exline, R. V., Thibaut, J., Hickey, G. B., & Gumpert, P. Visual interaction in relation to Machiavellianism and an unethical act. In R. Christie and F. L. Geis (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 53–75.Google Scholar
  11. Fay, P. J., & Middleton, W. C. The ability to judge truthtelling, or lying, from the voice as transmitted over a public address system. Journal of General Psychology, 1941, 24, 211–215.Google Scholar
  12. Hocking, J. E. Detecting deceptive communication from verbal, visual, and paralinguistic cues: An exploratory experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. Keating, J. P., & Brock, T. C. Acceptance of persuasion and the inhibition to counterargumentation under various distraction tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, 10, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knapp, M., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1974, 1, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krauss, R. M., Geller, V., & Olson, C. Modalities and cues in the detection of deception. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September, 1976.Google Scholar
  16. Kraut, R. E., & Hall, V. Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, 1976.Google Scholar
  17. Maier, N. Sensitivity to attempts at deception in an interview situation. Personnel Psychology, 1965, 19, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maier, N., & Janzen, J. The reliability of persons used in making judgments of honesty and dishonesty. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 25, 141–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maier, N., & Thurber, J. Accuracy of judgments of deception when an interview is watched, heard, and read. Personnel Psychology, 1968, 25, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCroskey, J. C. Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 1966, 33, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mehrabian, A. Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1969, 1, 203–207.Google Scholar
  22. Mehrabian, A. Nonverbal betrayal of feelings. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1971, 5, 64–75.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, G. R., & Boster, F. J. Three images of the trial: Their implications for psychological research. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the legal process. Jamaica, N.Y.: Spectrum, 1977. Pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, G. R., & Fontes, N. E. Videotape on trial: A view from the jury box. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishers, 1979.Google Scholar
  25. Namboodiri, N. K., Carter, L. F., & Blalock, H. M. Applied multivariate analysis and experimental designs. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.Google Scholar
  26. Osterhouse, R. A., & Brock, T. C. Distraction increases yielding to propaganda by inhibit- ing counterarguing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryan, M. G. The influence of teleconferencing medium and status on participants’ perception of the aestheticism, evaluation, privacy, potency, and activity of the medium. Human Communication Research, 1976, 2, 2552–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shulman, G. An experimental study of the effects of receiver sex, communicator sex, and warning on the ability of receivers to detect deceptive communicators. Unpublished masters thesis, Purdue University, 1973.Google Scholar
  29. Silverman, F., & Johnson, R. Direct interval estimation: A ratio scaling method. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1975, 41, 464–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trovillo, P. A history of lie detection. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1939, 29, 848–881.Google Scholar
  31. Weiner, M., & Mehrabian, A. Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.Google Scholar
  32. Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, 1954.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald R. Miller
    • 1
  • Joyce E. Bauchner
    • 2
  • John E. Hocking
    • 3
  • Norman E. Fontes
    • 1
  • Edmund P. Kaminski
    • 4
  • David R. Brandt
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.The NetworkAndoverUSA
  3. 3.Department of Speech CommunicationUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  4. 4.Department of Speech CommunicationUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  5. 5.Department of CommunicationRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations