Skip to main content
Log in

Nonverbal Markers of Lying During Children’s Collective Interviewing with Friends

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To examine nonverbal behaviors that may differentiate between lie- and truth-tellers, recent studies have relied on collective interviews (e.g., Vrij and Granhag in Appl Cognit Psychol 28(6):936–944, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3071), where participants were solicited to fake their responses about an unexperienced event. In this study, we made participants experience actual events that involved a potential rule violation, and later interviewed them collectively and unanticipatedly about these previously experienced events. Ninety same-sex preschool dyads were observed in a temptation resistance paradigm, where an adult experimenter proscribed touching of attractive toys and left the children alone. The dyads of children were later interviewed by the experimenter about how they handled this rule. Nonverbal behaviors were coded during the entire interview phase where they could lie by withholding transgression (i.e., lying by omission) and right after a target question where children chose to lie or tell the truth (i.e., lying by commission). Truth-tellers and lie-tellers showed (1) differences in response latency, looking at friend, and use of gestures right after the target question, but were (2) similar in their interactive nonverbal behaviors during the entire interview (i.e., speech transition, looking at friend, and utterance rate). This is the first study showing that nonverbal behaviors accompanying lie-telling behavior are different when a collective interview is carried out in a spontaneous deceptive context as opposed to planned deceptive contexts.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of 43 transgressors, a total of 8 children did not respond to the target question. While we excluded 2 non-responding children; we included the other 6 children because they responded to other interview questions. This way, we were able to classify them as liar or confessor.

  2. The recordings of 2 dyads (4 children) included technical problems in the sound files. These children did not touch the forbidden toys and truthfully responded to E1. These participants were only included for some of the analyses.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilal H. Şen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Şen, H.H., Küntay, A.C. Nonverbal Markers of Lying During Children’s Collective Interviewing with Friends. J Nonverbal Behav 43, 39–57 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0287-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0287-2

Keywords

Navigation