Detection of Deception in Adults and Children via Facial Expressions

Feldman, Robert S.; Jenkins, Larry; Popoola, Oladeji

doi:10.2307/1129409

Cited by 111 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with other research suggesting that children develop better control over nonverbal channels as their muscular control increases (Ekman, Roper, & Hager, 1980;Feldman & Phillipot, 1993;Kieras, Tobin, Braziano, & Rothbart, 2005;Saarni, 1984) and as they learn to mask nonverbal cues (Feldman et al, 1979;Morency & Krauss, 1982;Talwar & Lee, 2002;Talwar, Murphy, & Lee, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Like adults, children seem to be aware of nonverbal cues (Talwar, Lee, Bala, & Lindsay, 2004) and able to control nonverbal cues quite effectively (e.g., Lewis, Stanger, & Sullivan, 1989;Talwar & Lee, 2002;Talwar, Murphy, & Lee, 2007). Even preschool children are sometimes able to conceal their lies regarding transgressions (e.g., Crossman & Lewis, 2006;Lewis et al, 1989;Talwar & Lee, 2002), but school-age children control their nonverbal behavior and mask deception with positive facial expressions (e.g., Feldman, Jenkins, & Popoola, 1979;Morency & Krauss, 1982) better than younger children do. These findings suggest that, as age increases, deception cues are likely to decrease, although both children and adults strive to conceal lies by inhibiting non-verbal behaviors (Stromwall, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non-verbal behavior of children who disclose or do not disclose child abuse in investigative interviews

Katz¹,

Hershkowitz²,

Malloy³

et al. 2012

Child Abuse & Neglect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: The study focused on children's nonverbal behavior in investigative interviews exploring suspicions of child abuse. The key aims were to determine whether non-verbal behavior in the pre-substantive phases of the interview predicted whether or not children would disclose the alleged abuse later in the interview and to identify differences in the nonverbal behaviors of disclosing and non-disclosing children. Method: We studied DVD-recorded interviews of 40 alleged victims of child abuse. In all cases, there was external evidence strongly suggesting that abuse had occurred. However, half of the children disclosed abuse when interviewed using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol, whereas the other half did not. Two raters, unaware whether or not the children disclosed, independently coded the videotapes for nonverbal indices of positive and negative emotions, stress, and physical disengagement in each 15-second unit of the introductory, rapport building, and substantive interview phases. Results: Indicators of stress and physical disengagement increased as the interviews progressed while indices of positive emotions decreased. Non-disclosers showed proportionately more physical disengagement than disclosers in both the introductory and substantive phases. Conclusions: Awareness of non-verbal behavior may help investigators identify reluctant children early in forensic interviews. Practice implications: There is substantial evidence that, when questioned by investigators, many children do not disclose that they have been abused. The early detection of reluctance to disclose may allow interviewers to alter their behavior, helping the children overcome their reluctance by providing non-suggestive support before the possibility of abuse is discussed. Of course, nonverbal behavior alone should not be used to assess children in investigative interviews. However, nonverbal cues may nonetheless provide additional information to interviewers and assist them in identifying reluctant children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-verbal behavior of children who disclose or do not disclose child abuse in investigative interviews

Katz¹,

Hershkowitz²,

Malloy³

et al. 2012

Child Abuse & Neglect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted above, there has not been a great deal of research published on laypersons' perception and detection of children's lies (see, e.g., DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985;Feldman, Jenkins, & Popoola, 1979;Westcott, Davies, Graham, & Clifford, 1991). However, results suggest that adults perform similarly detecting children's and adults' lies, at around chance rates (Chahal & Cassidy, 1995;Edelstein et al, 2006;Leach et al, 2004;Talwar & Lee, 2002).…”

Section: Detecting Children's Liesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Adults' ability to detect children's lying

Crossman

Lewis²

2006

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adults are poor deception detectors when examining lies told by adults, on average. However, there are some adults who are better at detecting lies than others. Children learn to lie at a very young age, a behavior that is socialized by parents. Yet, less is known about the ability to detect children's lies, particularly with regard to individual differences in the ability to detect this deception. The current study explored adult raters' ability to discern honesty in children who lied or told the truth about committing a misdeed. Results showed that adults are no better at detecting children's lies than they are with adult lies. In particular, adults were very poor at identifying children's honest statements. However, individual differences did emerge, suggesting that the ability to detect lying in children might be facilitated by relevant experience working with children. Implications for legal and mental health contexts are discussed.

show abstract

“…Several investigators have examined how children use nonverbal behaviors of a deceiver to determine the true state of affairs (DePaulo & Jordan, 1982;Feldman, Jenkins, & Popoola, 1979;Feldman & White, 1980;Morency & Krauss, 1982;Rotenberg, Simourd, & Moore, 1989). This research has found that until early adolescence, children are generally poor at processing and using truth-revealing nonverbal cues displayed by deceptive individuals.…”

Section: Nih-pa Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Eyes Windows to a Deceiver's Soul? Children's Use of Another's Eye Gaze Cues in a Deceptive Situation.

Freire¹,

Eskritt²,

Lee³

2004

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined 3-to 5-year-olds' use of eye gaze cues to infer truth in a deceptive situation. Children watched a video of an actor who hid a toy in 1 of 3 cups. In Experiments 1 and 2, the actor claimed ignorance about the toy's location but looked toward 1 of the cups, without (Experiment 1) and with (Experiment 2) head movement. In Experiment 3, the actor provided contradictory verbal and eye gaze clues about the location of the toy. Four-and 5-year-olds correctly used the actor's gaze cues to locate the toy, whereas 3-year-olds failed to do so. Results suggest that by 4 years of age, children begin to understand that eye gaze cues displayed by a deceiver can be informative about the true state of affairs.For humans and other animals, eyes not only function to see things but also serve as stimuli to be seen by others. In the animal world, eyes serve important inter-and intraspecies communicative functions. Specifically, eye gaze provides information about aggression, dominance, submission, attention, and affiliation (Argyle & Cook, 1976;Hare, Brown, Williamson, & Tomasello, 2002;Povinelli & Eddy, 1997;Rutter, 1984). Human use of eye gaze information includes, but also goes beyond, the above functions. Foremost among humanspecific functions is the transmission of information about mental states and activities, information we interpret routinely (Argyle & Cook, 1976;Rutter, 1984). Nevertheless, this may not be true of everyone: It has been suggested that insensitivity to eye gaze is related to impairments in social and cognitive functioning, as in autism and Asperger syndrome (BaronCohen, Campbell, Karmiloff-Smith, Grant, & Walker, 1995;Baron-Cohen, Joliffe, Mortimore, & Robertson, 1997;Leekam, Baron-Cohen, Perrett, Milders, & Brown, 1997;Leekam, Lopez, & Moore, 2000;Philips, Baron-Cohen, & Rutter, 1992).There has been extensive research on adult perception of eye direction and use of eye gaze information. Research consistently indicates that adults are extremely sensitive to eye contact and direction of eye gaze, with accuracy of detecting eye contact and direction near the level of visual acuity (Cline, 1967;Gibson & Pick, 1963; Symons, Lee, Cedrone, & Nishimura, in press). Furthermore, evidence shows that adults readily make attributions about personality traits, such as competence and intelligence, and about physical attraction on the basis of eye gaze patterns (see Kleinke, 1986, for a review). Eye gaze cues are also used by adults to make inferences about others' cognitive activity, including their focus of attention, intention, desire, Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kang Lee, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109. E-mail: kang@psy.ucsd.edu. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscriptand knowledge about the current state of affairs (Argyle & Cook, 1976;Baron-Cohen et al., 1997;Kleinke, 1986).Research investigating the early development of children's sensitiv...

show abstract

Detection of Deception in Adults and Children via Facial Expressions

Cited by 111 publications

References 10 publications

Non-verbal behavior of children who disclose or do not disclose child abuse in investigative interviews

Non-verbal behavior of children who disclose or do not disclose child abuse in investigative interviews

Adults' ability to detect children's lying

Are Eyes Windows to a Deceiver's Soul? Children's Use of Another's Eye Gaze Cues in a Deceptive Situation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About