nonverbal signs of deception 1 - wordpress.com · nonverbal as opposed to verbal cues to deception,...

Nonverbal Signs of Deception 1

This selection is a research project I helped complete in my COM 150, Research Methodology, class

taken at Carroll University during the fall of my sophomore year in 2008. I was assisted in the

completion of this project by Katie Binger, Torrey Elsner, and Katja Weber. My contribution to this

project was doing research and finding sources, as well as helping in the writing and editing of the

actual report. I also assisted in the writing of the survey and consent form that would be used to

gather data as well as the idea of how we would collect data.


Nonverbal Signs of Deception:

Delving Deeper into Personal Experience

Katie Binger, Torrey Elsner, Jake Rowoldt, and Katja Weber

Carroll University

Lie detection is valued world-wide. Its significance goes beyond the professional realms

of law and its enforcement; deception obeys no boundaries, affecting professional and personal

human interaction. Everyone is affected by whether or not the people they communicate with


are telling them the truth. Society’s efforts to detect dishonesty have been extensive but the

results have not been promising.

This study explores the success of detecting nonverbal deception. By examining

nonverbal as opposed to verbal cues to deception, the most individualistic signs of deception are

eliminated. While there is no limitation on what an individual can verbally fabricate, nonverbal

cues are restricted to the movements of the human body. In research, even the smallest of

behaviors are examined, including speech rate, pauses (frequency and duration), gaze aversion

(frequency and duration), smiles and laughs, "self-manipulations" such as adjusting clothes or

hair or scratching oneself, illustrators such as arm and hand movements, as well as head and

trunk movements (Stromwall, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2006).

There is extensive literature on the correlation between certain nonverbal cues and lying,

but many utilize the same or similar methodologies. This study proposes a methodology

emphasizing increased naturalism which breeches shortcomings of previous studies in order to

glean a more realistic relationship between nonverbal cues and deception detection.

Literature Review

Multiple studies regarding the professional aspect of lie detection have been conducted,

most commonly within the realm of criminal justice and law enforcement. There have been

studies using criminal offenders to gain insight into nonverbal cues, although many researchers

have asked civilian subjects to role-play as a wrongdoer. Studies consistently show that criminal

offenders and non-offenders display similar nonverbal deceptive behaviors; it is suggested that

truth tellers’ fear of not being believed produces similar nonverbal behaviors as one who is afraid

of being caught lying (Porter, Doucette, Woodworth, Earle, & MacNeil, 2008; Stromwall,

Harwig, & Granhag, 2006). While nervous behaviors abound in every study, there seem to be


nuances in each; one or two nonverbal cues appear slightly more reliable in detection deception

than the others. In one study, non-offenders tended to smile more and used fewer self-

manipulations. It was concluded that the offenders were aware that laughing or smiling are

negatively related to credibility and that self-manipulations distract the audience from their lies

(Porter, Doucette, Woodworth, Earle, and MacNeil, 2008). It seems people’s pre-conceived

notions about lying affect how they attempt to appear truthful.

Similarly, DePaulo (1994) examined how police officers are trained in detecting

deceptive behavior and whether that training is helpful in discovering deceitful practices. Police

officers and other government officials have been used in the research of deceit detection, most

likely because they are considered to have more experience and training with deceivers. Yet

research shows officers of the law, judges, psychiatrists, and polygraphers are no more skilled at

differentiating truth from deceit than an average student (DePaulo, 1994). The most popular

training methods are the Reid technique and the kinesic interview technique. The Reid technique

“proposes that lying causes anxiety, and that the mind and body will work together to relieve this

anxiety” (Blair & Kooi, 2003, p. 78). Operating under this assumption, researchers utilizing the

Reid technique analyze the “posture, hands, feet, eyes… and vocal behaviors” (Blair & Kooi,

2003, p. 78-79) of a person suspected of being deceptive. Both the Reid technique and the

kinesic interview technique categorize “behaviors that are typically associated with

nervousness…such as gaze aversion, body movements, and a variety of speech disturbances”

(Colwell, Miller, Lyons, Jr., & Miller, 2006, p. 277) as deceptive behaviors. Colwell and

colleagues (2006) reported that new and improved training techniques are needed to provide

police officers with adequate deception detection training. The authors suggested that training

should include information indicating particular behaviors that point to deceptive behavior and


develop further opportunities to exercise those skills. Some argue that in spite of training, there

is no way to directly teach deception detection, though there is some sort of “implicit knowledge

about deception” that people have but do not understand how to access (DePaulo, 1994, p. 85).

According to Stromwall, Hartwig, and Granhag (2006), only a few behaviors somewhat

consistently manifest in liars. These are increased blinking and pupil dilation, decreased smiling

and laughing, more calculated hand movements and gestures, shorter responses to questions and

an unusually high pitched voice (DePaulo, 1994; Porter, Doucette, Woodworth, Earle &

MacNeil, 2008). Another study indicated that lying became associated with a decrease in deictic

gestures, which are pointing gestures, with an increase in metaphoric gestures, which are

pictorial but refer to an abstract idea rather than a concrete object or event. (Caso, Maricchiolo,

Bonaiuto, Vrij, & Mann, 2006). These subjects were accused of lying and interviewed a second

time, which made subjects aware of interviewers’ suspicion. The suspicion seemed to have an

effect of the subjects. When they were asked to repeat their account again, there was an increase

in metaphoric, rhythmic, and deictic gestures and a decrease in self-adaptor, emblematic, and

cohesive gestures (Caso, Maricchiolo, Bonaiuto, Vrij, & Mann, 2006).

While there has been significant research into nonverbal cues to deception, the majority

of studies have utilized college age and adult subjects. This trend in sampling does not

sufficiently represent the entire population it is trying to understand and assist. It is important to

extend research to all ages as up to 75% of fraudulent activity is directed toward those over the

age of 60 (Stanley & Blanchard-Fields, 2008). There have been a few studies done on age-

specific groups. It was found that older adults cannot recognize facial expressions of emotion as

well as younger members of the population (Stanley & Blanchard-Fields, 2008). If deceivers do

in fact give clues to their intent through facial microexpressions of fear, guilt, or excitement,


older adults are at a severe disadvantage at becoming aware of the deceit (Stanley & Blanchard-

Fields, 2008). They are less able to visually distinguish truth tellers from those who are trying to

mislead them (Stanley & Blanchard-Fields, 2008). If aging affects humanity's ability to

understand when we are being deceived, further research should study to what extent this deficit

can impact the lives of older adults (Stanley & Blanchard-Fields, 2008).

In everyday relationships, people, especially parents, like to know when they are being

deceived. Research into children’s deception habits has revealed the relationship between young

children’s deception and gaze aversion; children are more likely to associate lying with gaze

aversion (Einav & Hood, 2008). Another study found a difference in children's nonverbal cues

in prepared versus unprepared lies. Stromwall, Granhag & Landstrom (2006) found that the

unprepared statements were easier to detect as being false than the prepared ones due to

nonverbal cues such as the children's nervousness, body movements, and smiling/laughing.

One misconception DePaulo (1994) brings to light is the idea that length of acquaintance

increases sensitivity to deceit; yet this has not been supported by the literature. Even if a person

were to master another person's nonverbal cues so well that they could accurately detect deceit,

the skill would not transfer to any other person (DePaulo, 1994). Individual's behaviors while

lying differ so greatly that lie detecting is a non-transferrable skill. Understanding an individual's

usual way of behaving is essential in detecting deception (DePaulo, 1994).

It seems that gender also plays a role in deception. Overall, males are more likely than

females to suspect that someone is lying (DePaulo, 1994). Other literature states that girls were

more sensitive to the gaze cue than boys (Einav & Hood, 2008). Studies were also done

regarding gender differences in controllable suppressed movement. Cody and O’Hair (1983)

found that when males were lying, they suppressed leg and foot movements and the use of


illustrators and increased facial adapting when lying; however, this occurred only when subjects

were prepared to lie. There seemed to be no gender differences in laughter and smiling or for

eye contact duration (Cody & O’Hair, 1983).

There were some limitations in the studies examined. The subjects’ range of age in any

one study was severely limited. Although various researchers have looked at deception in

different age groups, no one methodology has studied a sample with a full range of ages. It is

important to get an accurate idea of the entire population’s tendencies in nonverbal cues to detect

deception, not just middle-aged and college-aged individuals.

The issue of experiments being true to real life is also an important one to consider in

investigations into deceit detection. In many studies, including one conducted by Stromwall,

Hartwig, and Granhag (2006), participants were set up to commit a transgression and afterwards

were encouraged to lie about it. Although participants were given monetary compensation for

their participation, the motivation for them to mislead anyone about their actions, which were

also staged, is extremely low; in real life situations, stakes are generally much higher.

A strategy researchers have used is to allow participants to self-report ways they have

attempted to convey their truthfulness to an interviewer (Stromwall, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2006).

Of their nonverbal behaviors, participants reported they attempted to make no excessive

movements, make and keep eye contact with the interviewer, speak calmly, or intentionally used

no strategy at all (Stromwall, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2006). This self-reported insight can be

extremely valuable; yet allowing people to share their strategies seems to be an area that has not

been fully explored. If self-report is combined with the survey method of research, researchers

could interview participants about their past experience both telling and detecting lies. This

could increase the ecological validity of the study.


In light of these past limitations, this study examines deception detection using a

qualitative self-report method across a range of age groups by posing the following two research

questions:

RQ1: What nonverbal behaviors are noticeable in a person who is likely being deceptive?

RQ2: What nonverbal behaviors do people notice in themselves when they are being

deceptive?

Methodology

This study will make use of the survey method. The survey method is an excellent

technique for conducting a study of nonverbal cues to deceit; this study is not interested in cause-

effect relationships between variables, nor does it aim to critique messages. Rather, it seeks to

describe the nature of communication through nonverbal cues.

By employing the survey method, this study will utilize the self-report method and collect

data from our subjects’ real life experiences with deception. This will provide an accurate

picture of how people act in a situation when they are trying to be deceptive, thus maximizing

the ecological validity of this study.

To further increase ecological validity, this study will focus on sampling people of an

assortment of ages. This study will survey subjects as young as 13 years of age with no upper

age limit. Because the sample will include diverse ages, which mimics the arrangement of the

population, the ability of this study to generalize its results to the larger population will be

enhanced. To measure all the necessary age groups for this experiment, it is imperative that

researchers conduct the studies in communities where responses from each age group can be

collected.


The research subjects for this study will all be from Waukesha, Wisconsin; therefore,

Waukesha is the largest population this study can represent. The population of Waukesha is

66,762 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). This population determines that the sample size will

be made up of at least 382 people (Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W., 1970). Because this study is

especially conscious of the age of those surveyed, 96 people in each of the four sampling

environments will be surveyed; 96 is more than one fourth of the sample size. Four distinct

environments will be surveyed in order to reach each age group, acquiring the necessary

approval (Appendix A) in each setting before administration of the survey.

The sampling of the youngest age group, which consists of children of at least 13 years of

age, will be conducted in a high school setting. Before distribution of the survey, guardian’s

consent will be obtained for any minors participating in the study. To research the older

population, which consists of those 65 years of age or older, a combination of retirement homes,

nursing homes, and/or senior activities centers will be used as the source of finding subjects.

College dorm complexes will be used in order to reach the age group of 18 to 22 years of age,

after approval from the necessary office. The most difficult group to sample will be the age

group of 22 to 65 years of age. For this, research subjects will be reached by going to a local park

or other public place.

Although sampling frames would be accessible for schools, senior centers, retirement

and nursing homes, as well as college dorm facilities, a sampling frame for public places is

unattainable. Therefore, in order to utilize the most random sampling method available, this

study will employ the use of cluster sampling. The researchers will go to the previously

mentioned locations together to survey the sample.


In high schools, students are separated by grade level in many classes. Researchers will

choose one period of the day to administer surveys, randomly choosing classrooms to sample.

All students in the chosen classrooms will be invited to participate. In other environments,

subjects will be approached individually as opposed to collectively.

Researchers will approach one potential subject at a time. Upon approaching, researchers

will introduce themselves and give a brief explanation of the study; that the researcher is

conducting a study on nonverbal cues to deception. They will inquire if the subject is willing to

complete a short survey, in the form of a questionnaire and brief interview, on their experience

with deception. The researcher will explain that there are no known risks associated with the

survey procedure, and that any and all personal information collected will remain confidential; if

the potential subject has doubts, researchers may communicate that age range will be the only

identifying piece of information gathered in the study, and subjects maintain the right to

terminate their participation at any time. The researcher will inform the subject that the survey

should take no more than ten minutes to complete and will be extremely beneficial in research in

the area of deception detection.

If the subject complies, he or she will be given the questionnaire (Appendix B) along

with a writing utensil and asked to complete the survey on site, which seeks to answer RQ2. The

subject will be given instructions to return to the researcher when the questionnaire is answered

fully, and the researcher will leave the subject and go to a predetermined area to wait for the

subject. The subject will be allowed to ask any questions of the researcher he or she wishes.

Once finished, the subject will place the completed questionnaire in a designated box, near the

researcher, to ensure anonymity. After guiding the subject to an area that meets his or her

privacy needs, the researcher will initiate the interview portion of the survey.


Each subject will be asked to respond to predetermined interview questions. Interviews

will be conducted to answer RQ1. By using the interview technique in conjunction with the

questionnaire, a high response rate will be attained for both segments. A high response rate can

be difficult to achieve using questionnaires alone. Additionally, being face to face with an

interviewer creates an environment which encourages subjects to give complete answers. The

researcher will write the subject’s verbal answers on the interview sheet (Appendix C). Once the

interview is complete, the researcher will thank the participant and place the completed form in

another box, separate from the questionnaires.

Although interviews will be successful in questioning subjects about others’ deceptive

behavior, there is concern about using the interview technique to ask subjects about themselves.

When the subjects’ own deceptive behaviors are addressed they may not be as open to answering

questions in an interview format. People may be more open to discussing their own deceptive

tendencies in a more anonymous environment, where an interviewer is not present to judge.

Therefore, to answer RQ2, questionnaires will be administered.

The questionnaire and interview are comprised of multiple choice and inventory

questions. By eliminating open-ended questions, subjects will be more willing to complete the

questionnaire in its entirety. This study will be most valid if subjects answer each question

completely.

The questionnaire and interview questions were borrowed from previous studies (Porter,

Doucette, Woodworth, Earle, & MacNeil, 2008; Stromwall, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2006).

Stromwall, Hartwig & Granhag said these cues are “traditionally examined in deception

research” (2006, p. 211). By observing the cues the previous studies coded when looking for

nonverbal signs of deception, a complete list has been compiled of nonverbal actions which


have, in the past, been thought to signify deceitful communication. Other characteristics were

added, based on researchers’ own experience with deception. The compiled list includes what

current and previous researchers believe to be an exhaustive list of nonverbal cues that may

signify deception. To account for any nonverbal cues which research has not yet linked to

deception detection, respondents will be given the option to list otherwise unlisted observations

of deceptive nonverbal cues.

After the interviews and questionnaires from each environment are collected in the box,

the data will be taken back to the research facility for scoring. Interview results and

questionnaire results will remain separated for scoring and each interview and questionnaire will

be scored by hand and individually. A frequency distribution will be utilized for the scoring of

both the interview and the questionnaire. Tallies will be made to signify affirmative answers to

each question. Results will be tallied three separate times, on separate days, to attain maximum

accuracy. Results will be recorded on a spreadsheet. Percentages for affirmative answers to

each question will be calculated. By comparing percentages, the most frequent nonverbal cues

of deception will be realized.

To answer RQ1, researchers will note which nonverbal cues subjects noticed in people

they believed were deceiving them. To answer RQ2, researchers will note which nonverbal cues

subjects noted in themselves while they were being deceptive. Continuously affirmative

questionnaire and interview answers indicate a linking of a certain nonverbal cue to attempts at

deception. After reviewing the data researchers will better understand the relationship between

nonverbal cues and deception.

Conclusion


The findings of the study will indicate which nonverbal cues people utilize in their

attempts at deception. The interview used to answer RQ1 will reveal nonverbal cues noticeable

in a person who is likely being deceptive. The study may indicate that someone who is

attempting to be deceptive will manifest voice quality and gaze related changes. The

questionnaire used to answer RQ2 will suggest nonverbal cues subjects notice in themselves

when they are being deceptive. It is likely that subjects will acknowledge fewer nonverbal

deceptive characteristics, but the study may still indicate the subjects' nervousness manifests in

voice quality changes. From this study's findings, the general public will be more informed and

can better identify when they are likely being deceived. Furthermore, this study’s results can

help professionals detect deception; they will know which nonverbal cues to pay attention to

while interviewing a subject.

The results obtained by this study could be affected by possible shortcomings in the

methodology or focus. The focus on age range in this study, though well intentioned, could have

caused an inconsistency in which cues are reported. Perhaps certain age groups are more likely

to use certain cues over others. The self-report method utilized in the study is also well

intentioned, but subjects may not remember their past experiences or outright lie about their

experiences. The survey itself also has limitations. Although there is space for participants to

note cues that are not listed, there is a possibility that subjects will not consider nonverbal cues

that have not been studied. The focus of this study is broad and qualitative; the exploratory

nature of the study makes conclusions difficult to draw, but the findings are an integral step in

formulating avenues for further research.

Based on this study's shortcomings and based on which characteristics people report,

further research can be done. The cues in the survey were divided into four categories; body


movements, gaze-related characteristics, facial expressions, and voice qualities. Within those

categories, there are specific nonverbal cues that can be studied individually and in more depth.

More specific research questions may be posed depending on the most highly reported nonverbal

cues. Specific variables can be explored in-depth; future studies may study specific ages or use

alternative sampling methods.


References

Blair, J. P., & Kooi, B. (2003). The gap between training and research in the detection of

deception. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 6, p. 78-79 Retrieved

April 1, 2009, from Academic Search Premier

Caso, L., Maricchiolio, F., Bonaiuto, M., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2006). The impact of deception

and suspicion on different hand movements. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 1-19.

Cody, M. J., & O'Hair, H. D. (1983). Nonverbal communication and deception: Differences in

deception cues due to gender and communicator dominance. Communication

Monographs, 49, 175-184.

Colwell, L. H., Miller, H. A., Lyons, Jr., P. M., & Miller, R. S. (2006). The training of law

enforcement officers in detecting deception: A survey of current practices and

suggestions for improving accuracy. Police Quarterly, 9, p. 277 Retrieved February 6,

2009, from Academic Search Premier.

DePaulo, B.M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 3, 83-85, Retrieved February 8, 2009, from Academic Search

Premier.

Einav, S., & Hood, B. M. (2008). Tell-tale eyes: Children's attribution of gaze aversion as a

lying cue. Developemental Psychology, 44, 1655-1667.

Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Porter, S., Doucette, N., Woodworth, M., Earle, J., & MacNeil, B. (2008). Halfe the world


knowes not how the other halfe lies: Investigation of verbal and non-verbal signs of

deception exhibited by criminal offenders and non-offenders. The British Psychological

Society, 13, 27-36.

Stanley, J.T, & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2008). Challenges older adults face in detecting

deceit: The role of emotion recognition. Psychology and Aging, 23, 24-32. Retrieved

February 2, 2009, from Academic Search Premier.

Stromwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Landstrom, S. (2006). Children's prepared and unprepared

lies: Can adults see through their strategies? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 457-471.

Stromwall, L.A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P.A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behavior

and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 207-219.

Retrieved February 2, 2009, from Academic Search Premier.References

U.S. Census Bureau (2007). 2007 Population Estimates. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from

www.census.gov.


Appendix A

CONSENT TO SERVE AS A PARTICIPANT IN:

"RESEARCH ON NONVERBAL CUES TO DECEPTION"

I consent to serve as a participant in the above survey investigation. The general nature of the

procedure and the fact that there are no known risks associated with the procedure has been

explained to me. I authorize the investigators to proceed on the understanding that I have the

right to terminate my services as a participant in this research at any time I so desire.

I understand that provisions have been made to protect my privacy and to maintain the

confidentiality of the data through this research project.

I have been informed that my participation in this project will help add to the communication

literature in this select topic area.

The survey administrator has offered to answer any questions I may have regarding this project

and I know that I may contact the project director for further information regarding the project.

Signed__________________________________________

(Participant)

Guardian Signature________________________________

(If participant is under 18)

Date____________________________________________


Appendix B

Questionnaire: Detecting Deception with Nonverbal Cues

Please answer each question as truthfully and completely as possible.

1. With which age range do you identify yourself? Please circle one:

13-18 19-24 25-30 31-40 41-50 51-64 65+

2. Have you had any formal training in deception detection?

Yes No

If yes, please elaborate:

For questions 3 through 6, recall situations in which you purposefully deceived someone.

3. Which unnatural body movements do you notice in yourself when you are being deceptive?

Arm, hand, or body shaking? Yes No

Increased self-manipulations (touching or

scratching your head, hand, body)? Yes No

Increased head nodding? Yes No

Increased movement of arms or legs? Yes No

Increased hand gestures? Yes No

Other? Yes No


4. Which eye-related characteristics do you notice in yourself when you are being deceptive?

Lack of eye contact? Yes No

Overly intentional eye contact? Yes No

Increased blinking? Yes No

Raised eyebrows? Yes No

Other? Yes No


5. If you are telling a lie, do you notice any irregularities in your facial expression?

Increased smiling? Yes No

Increased laughter? Yes No

Other? Yes No


(Survey continues on next page)


6. When being deceitful, do you notice a change in the quality of your voice?

Do you speak more quickly? Yes No

Do you speak more slowly? Yes No

Increased pauses in speech? Yes No

Increased length of pauses? Yes No

Increased use of fillers ("um," "like", etc.)? Yes No

Unnatural stuttering? Yes No

Unnatural misspeaking? Yes No

Other? Yes No


Thank you for participating in this study. Please return this survey to the researcher.


Appendix C

Interview: Detecting Deception with Nonverbal Cues

7. With which age range do you identify yourself?

13-18 19-24 25-30 31-40 41-50 51-64 65+

8. Have you had any formal training in deception detection?

Yes No


For questions 3 through 6, recall situations in which others were attempting to deceive you.

9. Which unnatural body movements did you notice in the other person?

Arm, hand, or body shaking? Yes No

Increased self-manipulations (touching or

scratching of the head, hand, body)? Yes No

Increased head nodding? Yes No

Increased movement of arms or legs? Yes No

Increased illustrative hand movements? Yes No

Other? Yes No


10. Which gaze-related characteristics did you notice in the other person?

Lack of eye contact? Yes No

Overly intentional eye contact? Yes No

Increased blinking? Yes No

Raised eyebrows? Yes No

Other? Yes No


11. Did you notice any of the following irregularities in their facial expression?

Increased smiling? Yes No

Increased laughter? Yes No

Other? Yes No



12. Did you notice any of the following changes in the quality of the person’s voice?

Did he or she speak more quickly? Yes No

Did he or she speak more slowly? Yes No

Increased pauses in speech? Yes No

Increased length of pauses? Yes No

Increased use of fillers ("um," "like", etc.)? Yes No

Unnatural stuttering? Yes No

Unnatural misspeaking? Yes No

Other? Yes No


nonverbal signs of deception 1 - wordpress.com · nonverbal as opposed to verbal cues to deception,...

Documents