Hidden Patterns of Nonverbal Behavior Associated with

Truth and DeceptionSPSP Data Blitz

Dr. Judee Burgoon Jeff Proudfoot David Wilson

Ryan Schuetzler

SPSP 2

Introduction• Communication tends to be highly

patterned– Including subtle, perhaps

imperceptible patterns– Communication patterns are complex

• Deception– Much research focused on very brief

segments– Ignores patterns among behaviors and

dynamic changes

• Does deception affect patterning and temporal changes?

1/17/2013

SPSP 3

Behavior Pattern Analysis• Bottom-up search of time-coded event data• Identifies behaviors occurring sequentially within a critical,

statistically significant time interval• Patterns may be combined to form multi-level, nested patterns

(Magnusson 2005, 2006)More information available at www.noldus.com

1/17/2013

SPSP 4

Behavior Pattern Analysis

1/17/2013

SPSP 5

Behavior Pattern Analysis

1/17/2013

SPSP 6

Behavior Pattern Analysis

t-pattern

1/17/2013

SPSP 7

Sample (Nested) Pattern17 elements, 6 levels, 4 occurrences

1/17/2013

SPSP 8

Experiment 1: Mock Theft Method

• Participants randomly assigned to “steal” a wallet from a classroom

• Both guilty and innocent participants interviewed– Innocent participants told the truth– Guilty participants lied

• Video-recorded interviews included baseline and theft-relevant questions

• Nonverbal behaviors manually coded with timestamps, submitted to Theme Analysis– e.g., illustrative gestures, adaptor behaviors, etc.

1/17/2013

SPSP 9

Mock Theft Results

• Truth tellers averaged longer patterns (M = 6.55, SD = 1.95) than did deceivers (M = 5.17, SD = 2.16)

• Deceivers repeated patterns (M = 9.48, SD = 2.95) more than truth tellers (M = 7.93, SD = 2.48), i.e., more redundancy

• During baseline questions, truth tellers had more patterns (M = 247, SD = 336) than deceivers (M = 98, SD = 395)

• During theft questions, truth tellers introduced far more new patterns (M = 23.6, SD = 32.2) than deceivers (M = 3.6, SD = 9.95)

1/17/2013

SPSP 10

Experiment 2: Cheating Method

• Participants played a trivia game with a partner (confederate)– Randomly induced to cheat (or not)– High-stakes academic consequences if caught

cheating– Some refused to cheat and some cheaters

confessed• All participants interviewed• Video-recorded interviews included

baseline, suspicion and direct accusation questions

• Nonverbal behaviors manually coded with timestamps, submitted to Theme Analysis

1/17/2013

SPSP 11

Cheating Results• Cheaters had fewer total patterns and fewer

unique patterns (due to inactivity, redundancy?)

Statistic

Condition

Honest (n = 25)

Cheaters (n = 6)

Confessors (n = 4)

Induced, but didn’t cheat

(n = 18)

Mean Unique Patterns 293.9 195.3 280.3 339.8

StDev Unique Patterns 337.5 98.7 134.9 290.8

Mean Total Patterns 1478.4 1055.3 1574.5 1678.1

StDev Total Patterns 1303.8 371.3 651.1 1199.8

1/17/2013

SPSP12

Comparison

Cheaters vs. Honest Liars vs. ConfessorsCheaters vs. Induced

but didn’t cheatdf = 29 df = 8 df = 22

t p-value t p-value t p-value

Num Unique Patterns 1.105 0.281 1.042 0.328 2.028 0.052

Total Num Patterns 1.235 0.230 1.341 0.217 2.185 0.037

Cheating Results--Group Comparisons

1/17/2013

SPSP 13

Experiment 3: StrikeComMethod

• 3-person groups (N = 14 triads) in a mock military command scenario (search & destroy enemy missile sites)

• Completed 5 search turns + 1 strike turn• 1 deceptive, 1 suspicious, and 1 naïve player• Nonverbal behaviors manually coded with

timestamps, submitted to Theme Analysis

1/17/2013

SPSP 14

StrikeCom Results

• Number of unique patterns ranged from 48 to over 1,600

• Deceivers exhibited strategic, manipulative patterning behavior

• Suspicious players showed investigatory probing patterning behavior

1/17/2013

SPSP 15

StrikeCom Results

VariableAir Intel Space

M SD M SD M SD% Illustrator gestures 20.6 (15.6) 32.6 (12.0) 46.9 (23.1)% Adaptor gestures 27.4 (15.4) 43.9 (16.1) 28.7 (12.7)% Lip adaptors 36.0 (20.6) 29.0 (12.0) 35.0 (17.5)% Speaker head movements 34.2 (21.4) 30.4 (16.0) 35.4 (19.5)% Listener head movements 42.4 (29.7) 26.6 (17.4) 31.0 (18.5)% of speaking activities 29.8 (16.9) 31.2 (11.4) 39.1 (19.4)% Total patterns 46.2 (21.2) 41.3 (23.2) 54.1 (19.3)% Total patterns solo 21.3 (13.5) 25.8 (18.6) 27.9 (17.5)% Total patterns initiating 34.5 (17.0) 26.7 (13.4) 38.8 (19.0)% Total patterns with switches 25.0 (16.8) 25.9 (22.8) 28.2 (16.4)Pattern length (complexity) 1.42 (0.7) 1.31 (0.8) 1.67 (0.6)

Means and Standard Deviations of Behaviors and General Pattern Statistics (N = 14)

1/17/2013

SPSP 16

Analysis and Results

Percent of session patterns

Speaking behavior Interactivity Specific roles

Started by Air

talking

Started by Intel talking

Started by

Space talking

With at least one

switch

With one

actor

With two

actors

With three actors

No Air

No Intel

No Space

With Air

With Intel

With Space

With Air .55 .34 -.63 .03 -.19 .04 .45 -.56 .37 .58 — .01 -.74

With Intel -.08 .26 -.51 .96 -.84 .81 .62 .66 -.59 .59 — — -.11

With Space -.52 -.58 .74 .03 -.09 .15 -.08 .45 .11 -.53 — — —

Select Intercorrelations of Session-Level Patterning Behaviors (N = 14)

1/17/2013

SPSP 17

Discussion

• Deceptive behavior is highly patterned• Pattern analysis reveals many relationships that would

otherwise go unnoticed– Tendency of deceiver to initiate patterns with manipulative

behaviors– Higher frequency of interaction between deceiver and

suspector (excluding the third group member)• Structure of and relatedness among interactive

behaviors only available through pattern analysis

1/17/2013

SPSP18

Questions?

1/17/2013