Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Methods Matter: Approaches to the Study of Deception and Considerations for the Future

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication

  • 3526 Accesses

Abstract

Throughout time researchers have tried to use their latest ideas and technology to detect lies. However, the methods and variables used were often ill defined, which may seriously affect how this research can be applied in the real world. This chapter proposes that researchers make five important considerations when designing any deception study: their specific definitions of phenomena, their use stakes or incentives, their allowing participants to choose to lie, their use of sanctioned or unsanctioned lies, and their appreciation of the power of the interview process itself in generating behaviors associated with truth or lie. We conclude that researchers should approach the study of deception in a more united, clearly defined methodological fashion for the betterment of our collective scholarly knowledge and for those professionals who rely on it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). The evolution of a theory of mind. In M. C. Corballis & S. E. Lea (Eds.), The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, M. S., Littlewort, G. C., Frank, M. G., & Lee, K. (2014). Automatic decoding of facial movements reveals deceptive pain expressions. Current Biology,24(7), 738–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskaran, N., Nwogu, I., Frank, M. G., & Govindaraju, V. (2011). Deceit detection via online behavioral learning. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 29–30). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research,36, 420–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blatz, W. E. (1925). The cardiac, respiratory, and electrical phenomena involved in the emotion of fear. Journal of Experimental Psychology,8(2), 109–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, S. (1980). The self deceived. Social Science Information,19(6), 923–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., & Robinson, M. (1988). The evolution of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,12, 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory,6, 203–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (1994). Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,18(2), 155–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & de Turck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research,10(3), 351–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, J. N. (1990). On defining conversation coordination and rapport. Psychological Inquiry,1, 303–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, J. N. (1991). Mutual adaptation and relativity of measurement. In B. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 103–117). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, J. N. (1997). Behavioral and judged coordination in adult informal social interactions: Vocal and kinesic indicators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72, 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C. K., Memon, A., Taylor, L., & Prewett, J. (2007). Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): An integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling,4(3), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C., & Prodger, P. (1998). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70(5), 979–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45(5), 1096–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin,129(1), 74–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Turck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1985). Deception and arousal: Isolating the behavioral correlates of deception. Human Communication Research,12, 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Driskell, T. (2012). Social indicators of deception. Human Factors,54, 577–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. J., Tower, D. C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2014). Synchronization of nonverbal behaviors in detecting mediated and non-mediated deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,38, 355–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1985/2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica,1(1), 49–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,29(3), 288–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & O’sullivan, M. (1988). Smiles when lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 414–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exline, R. V., Thibaut, J., Hickey, C. P., & Gumpert, P. (1970). Visual interaction in relation to machiavellianism and an unethical act. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 53–75). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, T. H., & Deturck, M. A. (1998). The behavioral correlates of sanctioned and unsanctioned deceptive communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,22(3), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G. (1989). Human lie detection ability as a function of the liar’s motivation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G. (2002). Smiles, lies, and emotion. In M. H. Abel (Ed.), An empirical reflection on the smile (pp. 15–43). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G. (2005). Research methods in detecting deception research. In J. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 341–368). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72(6), 1429–1439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G., & Svetieva, E. (2013). The role of nonverbal behavior in detecting and telling lies. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Hall (Eds.), Nonverbal Communication (pp. 471–511). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G., Yarbrough, J. D., & Ekman, P. (2006). Investigative interviewing and the detection of deception. In T. Williamson (Ed.), Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, Regulation (pp. 229–255). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendron, M., Roberson, D., van der Vyver, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2014). Perceptions of emotion from facial expressions are not culturally universal: Evidence from a remote culture. Emotion,14(2), 251–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin,137(4), 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior,30(5), 603–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review,88(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohnken, G. (1989). Behavioral correlates of statement credibility: Theories, paradigms, and results. In H. Wegener, F. Losel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behavior and the justice system: Psychological perspectives (pp. 271–289). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E., & Poe, D. B. (1980). Behavioral roots of person perception: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,39(5), 784–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfeld, H. S. (1920). Psychophysical symptoms of deception. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology,15(5–6), 319–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langleben, D. D., & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where science, law, and policy collide. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,19(2), 222–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. A. (1921). Modification of the Marston deception test. Journal of the American Institute Criminal Law & Criminology,12, 390–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R. (2015). New and improved accuracy findings in deception detection research. Current Opinion in Psychology,6, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitan, S. I., An, G., Ma, M., Levitan, R., Rosenberg, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2016). Combining acoustic prosodic, lexical, and phonotactic features for automatic deception detection. In INTERSPEECH (pp. 2006–2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2002). Suspects, lies and videotape: An analysis of authentic high-stakes liars. Law and Human Behavior,26, 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masip, J., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2004). Defining deception. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology,20(1), 147–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,6(2), 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. R., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Deceptive communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosso, A. (1875). Sopra un nuovo metodo per scrivere i movimenti dei vasi sanguigni nell’uomo. Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino,11, 21–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(5), 665–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novotny, E., Carr, Z., Frank, M. G., Dietrich, S. B., Shaddock, T., Cardwell, M., & Decker, A. (2018). How people really suspect and discover lies. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(1), 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology,20(4), 421–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiff, J., Corman, S., Krizek, B., & Snider, E. (1994). Individual differences and changes in nonverbal behavior: Unmasking the changing faces of deception. Communication Research,21(5), 555–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Brinke, L., Stimson, D., & Carney, D. R. (2014). Some evidence for unconscious lie detection. Psychological Science,25(5), 1098–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trovillo, P. V. (1939). A history of lie detection. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,29(6), 848–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiamyrtzis, P., Dowdall, J., Shastri, D., Pavlidis, I. T., Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2007). Imaging facial physiology for the detection of deceit. International Journal of Computer Vision,71(2), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. E., Edgley, C., & Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11, 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). An empirical test of the behaviour analysis interview. Law and Human Behavior,30(3), 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waid, W. M., & Orne, M. T. (1982). The physiological detection of deception: The accuracy of polygraph testing can be affected by such variables as attentiveness, drugs, personality, and the interaction between examiner and subject. American Scientist,70(4), 402–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehorn, J. C., Kaufman, M. R., & Thomas, J. M. (1935). Heart rate in relation to emotional disturbances. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry,33(4), 712–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, T. A. (1845). Commentary on the Hindu system of medicine. Calcutta, India: Baptist Mission Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuille, J. C. (1989). Credibility assessment. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,14, 1–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Zachary M. Carr, Anne Solbu & Mark G. Frank

Authors
  1. Zachary M. Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Solbu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark G. Frank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachary M. Carr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Studies, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA

    Tony Docan-Morgan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Carr, Z.M., Solbu, A., Frank, M.G. (2019). Why Methods Matter: Approaches to the Study of Deception and Considerations for the Future. In: Docan-Morgan, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation