Do people behave differently when they are lying compared with when they are telling the truth? The combined results of 1,338 estimates of 158 cues to deception are reported. Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales. They also make a more negative impression and are more tense. Their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents. However, many behaviors showed no discernible links, or only weak links, to deceit. Cues to deception were more pronounced when people were motivated to succeed, especially when the motivations were identity relevant rather than monetary or material. Cues to deception were also stronger when lies were about transgressions.

Cues to deception

Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) represents a merger of interpersonal communication and deception principles designed to better account for deception in interactive contexts. At the same time, it bas the potential to enlighten theories related to (a) credibility and truthful communication and (b) interpersonal communication. Presented here are key definitions, assumptions related to the critical attributes and key features of interpersonal communication and deception, and 18 general propositions from which specific testable hypotheses can be derived. Research findings relevant to the propositions are also summarized.

Interpersonal Deception Theory

Introduction BASIC RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES 2. Measuring facial actions 3. Vocal expression of affect 4. Proxemics, kinesics and gaze 5. Conducting judgment studies: some methodological issues RESEARCH APPLICATIONS IN NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 6. Nonverbal behavior and interpersonal sensitivity 7. Nonverbal behavior in education 8. Nonverbal behavior and psychopathology 9. Research methods in detecting deception research 10. Nonverbal communication coding systems of committed couples 11. Macrovariables in affective expression in women with breast cancer participating in support groups SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS 12. Technical issues in recording nonverbal behavior Appendix: Methodological issues in studying nonverbal behavior

/pdf/the-new-handbook-of-methods-in-nonverbal-behavior-research-5asqu0semk.pdf

The New Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research

The question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone’s nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone’s speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such guidance in the present article.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100610390861

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Deception research has consistently shown that accuracy rates tend to be just over fifty percent when accuracy rates are averaged across truthful and deceptive messages and when an equal number of truths and lies are judged. Breaking accuracy rates down by truths and lies, however, leads to a radically different conclusion. Across three studies, a large and consistent veracity effect was evident. Truths are most often correctly identified as honest, but errors predominate when lies are judged. Truth accuracy is substantially greater than chance, but the detection of lies was often significantly below chance. Also, consistent with the veracity effect, altering the truth‐lie base rate affected accuracy. Accuracy was a positive linear function of the ratio of truthful messages to total messages. The results show that this veracity effect stems from a truth‐bias, and suggest that the single best predictor of detection accuracy may be the veracity of message being judged. The internal consistency and paralleli...

Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect”

This study examined the effect of probing for additional information on the accuracy of deception detection. One hundred forty-eight experimental interactions were analyzed to see whether deceivers and truthtellers behave differently when probed and whether probing improved deception detection. Probing produced a number of changes in nonverbal behavior, several of which differed between deceivers and truthtellers. Probing may have communicated suspicion or uncertainty; therefore, deceptive sources were motivated to control their nonverbal demeanor to mask deception-related cues and appear truthful. Probing did not improve detection. Instead, probing receivers considered all sources more truthful. It is suggested that suspiciousness and prior knowledge may affect probing's efficacy.

R. K. Aune

Papers

The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers