Indicators of deception in different lie scenarios

Joanna Ulatowska

Abstract


The current study was designed to assess the presence of deception indicators in truthful and deceptive statements. Four independent raters watched 80 statements on three different topics and evaluated the presence of 11 different cues to deception. It was hypothesized that it would be impossible to accurately differentiate between truthful and deceptive statements based on raters’ evaluation and that the ratings of credibility would be based on stereotypical beliefs about cues to deception rather than on the objective indicators of deception. Moreover, different deception topics would result in different patterns of indicators. The results partially supported the hypothesis – the raters’ evaluations did not make it possible to differentiate truth from lies; however, it was usually the objective cues that were used to predict the credibility of statements. Moreover, different accounts resulted in different patterns of cues to deception.


Keywords


deception; cues to deception; deception detection

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bond, Ch. F., Omar, A., Pitre, U., Lashley, B. R., Skaggs, L. M., & Kirk, C. T. (1992). Fishy-looking liars: Deception judgments from expectancy violation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 969-977.

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.

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 78-118.

DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2004). Discerning lies from truths: Behavioral cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In P. A. Granhag, & L. Stromwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DePaulo B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1713-1722.

Desforges, D. M., & Lee, T. C. (1995). Detecting deception is not as easy as it looks. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 128-130.

Ekman, P. (2003). Kłamstwo i jego wykrywanie w biznesie, polityce i małżeństwie. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Elaad, E. (2003). Effects of feedback on the overestimated capacity to detect lies and the underestimated ability to tell lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 349-363.

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.

Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 486-495.

Granhag, P. A., Andersson, L. O., Stomwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals’ beliefs about deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 1-17.

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

Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception. A Meta-analytic Synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(1), 1-34.

Stiff, J. B., Miller, G. R., Sleight, C., Mongeau, P., Garlick, R., & Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 555-564.

Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9, 10-36.

Ulatowska, J. (2009). Deklarowana wiedza na temat wskaźników kłamstwa oraz niektóre jej uwarunkowania. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw.

Ulatowska, J. (2010). The influence of providing the context of the assessment on the accuracy of the indirect method of deception detection. Problems of Forensic Sciences, 84, 380-391.

Vrij, A. (1995). Behavioral correlates of deception in simulated police interview. Journal of Psychology, 129(1), 14-29.

Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and its implications for professional practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3-41.

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd Edition. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006). Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the general public’s beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 297-312.

Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). Police officers’ ability to detect deceit: The benefit of indirect deception detection measures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 185-196.

Vrij, A., Granhag, P., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Lying about flying: The first experiment to detect false intent. Psychology, Crime and Law, 17(7), 611-620.

Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001a). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187-203.

Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001b). Who killed my relative? Police officers’ ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7, 119-132.

Vrij, A., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(1), 65-80.

Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 14, pp. l-57). New York: Academic Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Roczniki Psychologiczne/Annals of Psychology

ISSN: 1507-7888   e-ISSN: 2451-4306


© Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL & Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II – Wydział Nauk Społecznych


Articles are licensed under a Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)