Norms, expectations, and deception: A norm violation model of veracity judgments

Levine, Timothy R.; Anders, Lori N.; Banas, John A.; Baum, Karie Leigh; Endo, Keriane; Hu, Allison D. S.; Wong, Norman C. H.

doi:10.1080/03637750009376500

Cited by 75 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…considered a suspect by investigators, found guilty, sentenced more severely). This proposition is in line with the normative violation model of Levine et al (2000); in the theory of Levine et al ''behavior violating norms [i.e. socially inappropriate behavior] will be judged as less honest than norm-consistent behavior'' (p. 127).…”

Section: The Role Of Expectations For Emotionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…There was incriminating evidence present during the investigation and presented during the trial, but if Pam Smart's lack of emotion created suspicion in the investigators and/or jurors, that suspicion would seem to be well placed given the trial's outcome. Levine et al (2000) explain that, while expectations can come from norms (''situationally based standards for behavior,'' p. 124), they can also come from other sources. For example, prior interaction with the target person or information from an informed source can lead one to expect normal or abnormal behavior.…”

Section: The Influence Of Emotion In Actual Cases: Some Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Arresting and convicting the innocent: the potential role of an “inappropriate” emotional display in the accused

Heath

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research from both simulated and actual jurors has demonstrated that the defendant's emotional display can influence legal decisions. The purpose of this paper is to review the evidence regarding the influence of the defendant's emotional display, and to consider the potential role of suspect and defendant emotion in wrongful convictions. It is possible that the lack of "appropriate" emotion during questioning or interrogation may lead investigators to create a mind-set that the suspect is the guilty party; as a result, they may be less inclined to investigate other leads. During a trial, the defendant's perceived level of emotion can potentially mislead jurors (e.g. a defendant displaying a low level of emotion leading people to believe, inappropriately, that he is guilty). After a review of the pertinent literature and examples of relevant cases, reasons are provided regarding why one's emotional display may be of limited diagnostic value. Future research ideas are proposed in an effort to determine more definitively the impact of the emotional display of the accused on legal decisions.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Expectations For Emotionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: The Influence Of Emotion In Actual Cases: Some Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arresting and convicting the innocent: the potential role of an “inappropriate” emotional display in the accused

Heath

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Farquhar, 2005). Research shows that people are more truth-biased when interacting face-to-face (Buller et al, 1991), when they know the person they are talking to (McCornack & Parks, 1986), and they are not forewarned of impending deception (e.g., Levine et al, 2000;McCornack & Levine, 1990). Each of these conditions is often met in everyday situations, but is seldom the case in deception detection experiments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Explanations for truth-bias include the cognitive processes involved in mentally representing true and false information (Gilbert, 1991) and fundamental principles in how language is understood (Grice, 1989;McCornack, 1992). Truth-bias is especially pronounced when people interact face-to-face (Buller, Strzyzewski, & Hunsaker, 1991), when people know the message source (McCornack & Parks, 1986), and in studies where the participants are unaware that their task is to detect lies (e.g., Levine et al, 2000;McCornack & Levine, 1990). Levine et al (1999) observed that the research documenting the accuracy-is-slightlyabove-50% conclusion typically share two important features.…”

Section: Deception Detection Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model

Levine

Kim

Park

et al. 2006

Communication Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provided the first empirical test of point predictions made by the Park-Levine probability model of deception detection accuracy. Participants viewed a series of interviews containing truthful answers, unsanctioned, high-stakes lies, or some combination of both. One randomly selected set of participants (n0/50) made judgments where the probability that each message was honest was P(H)0/.50. Accuracy judgments in this condition were used to generate point predictions generated from the model and tested against the results from a second set of data (n 0/413). Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight base-rate conditions where the probability that a message was honest systematically varied from 0.00 to 1.00. Consistent with the veracity effect, participants in P(H)0/.50 condition were significantly more likely to judge messages as truths than as lies, and consequently truths (67%) were identified with greater accuracy than lies (34%). As predicted by the model, overall accuracy was a linear function of message veracity base-rate, the base-rate induction explained 24% of the variance in accuracy scores, and, on average, raw accuracy scores for specific conditions were predicted to within approximately9/2.6%. The findings show that specific deception detection accuracy scores can be precisely predicted with the Park-Levine model.

show abstract

“…Previous theoretical work focusing on violations of social norms (e.g., Levine, et al, 2000) and expectations for nonverbal behavior (Burgoon & LePoire, 1993) suggests that, when norm violations are perceived negatively, people who violate norms are judged less favorably than people who follow norms. Although minor interruptions and back channel cues are expected, or even preferred during informal conversations, institutionally constituted talk, such as televised political debates, usually have formally constructed rules for who can speak, how long each debater can speak, the appropriate topics for discussion, and so on (e.g., Tracy, 2002).…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates: Does Displaying Nonverbal Agreement and/or Disagreement Benefit Either Debater?

Seiter

Weger

Jensen

et al. 2010

The Journal of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the effects of background nonverbal behavior displayed with the purpose of undermining one's opponent in televised debates. Students watched one of four versions of a televised debate. In each, while the speaking debater appeared on the main screen, subscreens displayed her nonspeaking opponent's background nonverbal behavior. In one version, the non-speaking debater remained "stone faced" during her opponent's speech, while in the other three she nonverbally displayed occasional disagreement, nearly constant disagreement, or both agreement and disagreement. After viewing the debates, students rated the debaters' credibility, appropriateness, objectivity, and debate skills, in addition to judging who won the debate. Analysis indicated that background nonverbal behavior influenced audience perceptions of debaters' credibility, appropriateness, objectivity, debate skill, and the extent to which the debate was won. These results suggest that adding nonverbal agreement to expressions of nonverbal disagreement do not reduce the negative impacts of communicating disagreement nonverbally during an opponent's speech and may in fact further decrease the audiences' perception of a debater's credibility and overall performance.

show abstract

Norms, expectations, and deception: A norm violation model of veracity judgments

Cited by 75 publications

References 19 publications

Arresting and convicting the innocent: the potential role of an “inappropriate” emotional display in the accused

Arresting and convicting the innocent: the potential role of an “inappropriate” emotional display in the accused

Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model

The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates: Does Displaying Nonverbal Agreement and/or Disagreement Benefit Either Debater?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About