Detecting Deceit Via Analyses of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Children and Adults

Abstract

This experiment examined children's and undergraduates' verbal and nonverbal deceptive behavior, and the extent to which their truths and lies could be correctly classified by paying attention to these responses. Participants (N = 196) aged 5-6, 10-11, and 14-15, as well as university undergraduates, participated in an erasing the blackboard event, and told the truth or lied about the event afterwards. Nonverbal and verbal responses were coded, the latter with Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring. Although children and undergraduates demonstrated different behaviors (for example, the children obtained lower CBCA scores and made more movements), actual cues to deceit were remarkably similar across different age groups (for example, both 5-6-year-olds and undergraduates obtained lower CBCA scores and made fewer movements while lying). A combination of verbal and nonverbal lie detection methods resulted in more correct classifications of liars and truth tellers than the verbal and nonverbal lie detection methods individually, with the combined method obtaining hit rates as high as 88%.

Comparing a Perceptual and an Automated Vision-Based Method for Lie Detection in Younger Children

“…Nevertheless, some research suggests that lie-tellers tend to exhibit slightly more positive non-verbal behaviors, such as smiles, relaxed and confident facial expressions, and a positive tone of voice (Lewis et al, 1989). However, other research suggests that children have poor control of their non-verbal behavior, which points toward opposite and conflictive directions of what has been previously reported (Vrij et al, 2004; McCarthy and Lee, 2009). For instance, a study has reported that children between the ages of 7–9 years old show less eye contact when lying rather than when answering the truth while older children show longer eye contact, which is similar to what adults exhibit during a lying situation (McCarthy and Lee, 2009).…”

“…For instance, a study has reported that children between the ages of 7–9 years old show less eye contact when lying rather than when answering the truth while older children show longer eye contact, which is similar to what adults exhibit during a lying situation (McCarthy and Lee, 2009). Another study suggests a decrease of movement during a lie-tell, particularly on the hands and fingers (Vrij et al, 2004). …”

“…This means that lie detection accuracy is usually around or slightly above chance level (Bond and Depaulo, 2006; Porter and Ten Brinke, 2008; ten Brinke et al, 2012; Serras Pereira et al, 2014). However, most researchers in this field share the idea that there are certain verbal and non-verbal cues that may uncover whether a person is lying or not, and that the accuracy levels of deception detection are higher if both non-verbal and verbal cues are taken into account (Vrij et al, 2004). One line of research has been focusing on finding these cues by manipulating levels of cognitive load during a lie-tell, which makes lying more difficult, and probably facilitates the emergence of deception cues (Vrij et al, 2006, 2008).…”

Underlying processes behind false perspective production

“…Vrij, Akehurst, Soukara and Bull (2004) found significant differences in the expected direction regarding logical structure, amount of details, contextual information, descriptions of interaction, conversation reproduction, visual, audio, spatial and temporal details and cognitive operations. No effects were found however regarding mental state attributions, acknowledgement of lack of memory and doubts.…”

“…a) Mounting evidence (Bensi, Gambetti, Nori, & Giusberti, 2009;Campos & AlonsoQuecuty, 1998;Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Colwell, Taylor, & Woods, 2009;Comblain, D'Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2005;Diges, 1995;Diges, Rubio & Rodríguez, 1992;Henkel, Franklin & Johnson, 2000;Manzanero, El-Astal & Aróztegui, 2009;Memon, Fraser, Colwell, Odinot & Mastroberardino, 2010;Pérez-Mata & Diges, 2007;Roberts & Lamb, 2010) suggests that numerous factors (activation levels, coherence and previous knowledge, perceptual modality, subjects' involvement degree and perspective, age, contextual factors, type of design used in the research, training of the evaluators, and the coding method) influence the characteristics of statements. b) There is also great variability in the possible origins of memories and different sources produce distinctive characteristics which vary depending on whether they are from fantasy, lies, dreams or post-event information (Hekkanen & McEvoy, 2005;Johnson, Kahan & Raye, 1984;Sporer & Sharman, 2006;Vrij et al, 2004). c) Moreover, within each source there are different degrees on a continuum from perceptual memories to the most fantastic memories.…”