This current work explored the speech-based attributes of participants who were being deceptive in an experimental interrogation setting. In particular, the study attempted to investigate the appropriateness of using temporal speech cues in detecting deception. Deceptive and control speech was elicited from nineteen speakers and the data was analyzed on a range of speech parameters including Speaking Rate (SR), Response Onset Time (ROT) and frequency and duration of Hesitation markers. The findings point to a significant increase in SR, a significant decrease in ROT and a reduction in hesitation phenomena in the deceptive condition suggesting an acceleration of overall speaking tempo. The potential significance of temporal parameters for detecting deception in speech is recognized. However, the complex and multifaceted nature of deceptive behaviour is highlighted and caution is advised when attempting veracity judgments based on speech.


Deception Speaking Rate Response Onset Time Hesitations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Benus, S., Enos, F., Hirschberg, J., Shriberg, E.: Pauses in deceptive Speech. In: Proceedings ISCA 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody, Dresden, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DePaulo, B.M., Lindsay, J.J., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., Cooper, H.: Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin 129(1), 74–118 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eachus, P., Stedmon, A.W., Baillie, L.: Hostile Intent in Crowded Places: A Field Study. Applied Ergonomics (2012),
  4. 4.
    Ekman, P.: Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. W. W. Norton, New York (1985) (Reprinted in 1992 and 2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giles, H., Coupland, N., Coupland, J.: Accommodation Theory: Communication, Context and Consequence. In: Giles, H., Coupland, J., Coupland, N. (eds.) Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. CUP, Cambridge (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldman-Eisler, F.: Psycholinguistics. Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. Academic Press, London (1968)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirchhübel, C., Howard, D.M.: Detecting suspicious behavior using speech: Acoustic correlates of deceptive speech – an exploratory investigation. Applied Ergonomics (2012),
  8. 8.
    Kirchhübel, C & Howard, D. M.: Deception and Speech – a theoretical overview (in press) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lykken, D.: A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. Perseus Publishing, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller, G.R., Stiff, J.B.: Deceptive Communication. Sage, Newbury Park (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Hair, H.D., Cody, M., McLaughlin, M.L.: Prepared lies, spontaneous lies, Machiavellianism and nonverbal communication. Human Communication Research 7, 325–339 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vrij, A.: Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edn. Wiley, West Sussex (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vrij, A., Heaven, S.: Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity. Psychology, Crime & Law 5, 203–315 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walczyk, J.J., Roper, K.S., Seemann, E., Humphrey, A.M.: Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology 17, 744–755 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walcyyk, J.J., Schwartz, J.P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M., Zha, P.: Lying person-to-person about live events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology 58, 141–170 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christin Kirchhübel
    • 1
  • Alex W. Stedmon
    • 2
  • David M. Howard
    • 1
  1. 1.Audio Laboratory, Department of ElectronicsUniversity of YorkUK
  2. 2.Cultural Communications and Computing Research Institute (C3RI)Sheffield Hallam UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations