Effects of contextual expectancies on deception-detection

Abstract

This study examined the nonspecificity of behavioral cues and information transmitted in deceptive communication.Ten female Japanese students in a nurse-training course orally described disgust-arousing pictures or non-arousing ones and their feelings either truthfully, deceptively, or truthfully with mental calculation.Their communications were videotaped and 60 Japanese undergraduate students watched them, formed impressions of their emotional states, and rated deceptive or calculating impression. The raters interpreted the communications as deceptive or calculating depending on their contextual expectancy regardless of communicators' actual deception or calculation. Their interpretations were based on impressions of psychological load and tension. It was inferred that nonverbal deception cues signify stress states of the communicator and that raters attribute these stress impressions to the communicator's deception when the context suggests deception.

Boys' lying and social adjustment in pre‐adolescence: teachers', peers' and self‐reports

“…Results indicated a relatively high concordance between peers' and teachers' assessments of lying, but a low concordance from self-reports to peers' and teachers' reports regarding the frequency of lying. These results are consistent with previous reports establishing the difficulties for others to detect lying (Kraut, 1980;DePaulo et al, 1985;Kurasawa, 1988). Moreover they show the importance of exploring more thoroughly the personal and behavioural characteristics of children who are perceived as lying.…”

Exploring the Effect of Verbal and Nonverbal Cues on Perceptions of Deception

“…For instance, Kurasawa (1988) primed participants to believe a communicator was either being deceptive or was working on a mental calculation while making a statement. The participants rated the communicators as either deceptive or calculating, depending on which concept was activated.…”

Cultural determinants of media choice for deception

“…The researchers found that participants were only accurate in their assessments about 50% of the time, and that when the observers were given a chance to become familiar with the subject by watching a video of their normal behavior, body cues did serve as better indicators than facial cues. Ekman and Friesen's (1974) experiment has been replicated a number of times using different subjects and different controls (Kurasawa, 1988;Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), and findings generally indicate that while individuals are confident that they know which cues signify that deception is taking place, individuals are rarely able to detect deception at a rate better than chance.…”

“…Cues are behaviors that receivers recognize which alert the receiver that deception may be taking place. The premises are that: 1) a sender experiences more arousal and cognitive load when deceiving because he/she needs to construct a false statement rather than simply state interpretations (Zuckerman et al, 1981;Cheng and Broadhurst, 2005), and 2) when the sender is motivated to be successful in the deception, he/she will experience tension (Kurasawa, 1988;Bond and Atoum, 2000). The state of arousal and tension will sometimes be manifested physically as behavioral cues.…”

“…An example of a cue is aversion to eye-contact, which is widely believed by participants to be an indicator of deception, however, research has shown almost no connection between a lack of eye-contact and deception (DePaulo et al, 2003). Ekman and Friesen (1974) conducted one of the best known deception detection studies (Kurasawa, 1988). Ekman and Friesen started by pointing out that "nonverbal behavior reveals how people feel, even when they wish to conceal their feelings."…”