Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:32:13.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Discerning lies from truths: behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Bella M. DePaulo
Affiliation:
University of Virginia, USA
Wendy L. Morris
Affiliation:
University of Virginia, USA
Pär Anders Granhag
Affiliation:
Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
Leif A. Strömwall
Affiliation:
Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Can you tell whether suspects are lying based on what they say, how they say it, how they sound when they say it, or how they look? Can you do so even without any special equipment, such as a polygraph to monitor physiological responses (Honts, this volume) or a camera to record interviews, which can then be studied in microscopic detail (O'Sullivan and Ekman, this volume)? These are the questions we will address in this chapter.

Reading this chapter will not give anyone grounds for feeling smug about his or her deception detection prowess in forensic contexts (nor in any other contexts, for that matter). The study of verbal and non-verbal behavioural cues to deception is an inexact science, and probably always will be. We will offer hints, based on the current state of the science, about the kinds of behaviours that are more or less likely to intimate that a suspect may be lying. Our suggestions may be of some value in cases in which more definitive evidence, such as DNA, is not available or has not yet been uncovered. We hope our review will also prove useful in demonstrating why sweeping statements about perfect cues to deception are deserving of deep scepticism.

There are two fundamental questions in the study of verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. First, are there any such cues? That is, are there any behaviours that indicate whether a person may be lying?

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D. E. (1999). Cognitive and motivational processes underlying truth bias. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia
Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., and Ansfield, M. E. (2002). The development of deception detection skill: A longitudinal study of samesex friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 536–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., Ansfield, M. E., Tickle, J. J., and Green, E. (1999). Beliefs about cues to deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom?Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F., Jr, and DePaulo, B. M. (2004). Accuracy and truth bias in the detection of deception. Manuscript in preparation
Bond, C. F. Jr, and Fahey, W. E. (1987). False suspicion and the misperception of deceit. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 41–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., and Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy–confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., Jordan, A., Irvine, A., and Laser, P. S. (1982). Age changes in the detection of deception. Child Development, 53, 701–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., and Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In J. C. Yuille (ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 51–70). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicCrossRef
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., and Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., and Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1713–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., Rosenthal, R., Green, C. R., and Rosenkrantz, J. (1982). Diagnosing deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and non-verbal cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 433–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies. New York: Norton. (Reprinted, 1992.)
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and O'Sullivan, M. (1988). Smiles while lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 414–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granhag, P. A., and Strömwall, L. A. (2000). Deception detection: Examining the consistency heuristic. In C. M. Breur, M. M. Kommer, J. F. Nijboer, and J. M. Reintjes, (eds.), New trends in criminal investigation and evidence II (pp. 309–21). Antwerpen: Intersentia
Hall, M. E. (1986). Detecting deception in the voice: An analysis of fundamental frequency, syllabic duration, and amplitude of the human voice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University
Horvath, F. S. (1973). Verbal and non-verbal clues to truth and deception during polygraph examinations. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 138–52Google Scholar
Horvath, F., Jayne, B. C., and Buckley, J. (1994). Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behaviour analysis interviews. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 793–807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurd, K., and Noller, P. (1988). Decoding deception: A look at the process. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 217–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., and Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions (4th edn). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit. Chichester, England: John Wiley
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., and Morris, P. (1997). Individual differences in hand movements during deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Edward, K., and Bull, R. (2001). Police officers' ability to detect deceit: The benefit of indirect deception detection measures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 185–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuille, J. C., and Cutshall, J. (1989). Analysis of statements of victims, witnesses, and suspects. In J. C. Yuille (ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 175–91). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicCrossRef

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×