Are You Lying to Me? : Using Nonverbal Cues to Detect Deception

The present study was designed to investigate the relationship between response latency, speech rate accommodation, and judgments of deception. Participants listened to a recorded conversation between Jim and Claire, a dating couple. The conversation contained 32 question/answer pairs, with each speaker responding to 16 questions. Half of the responses were self-oriented (benefiting the self), and half were other-oriented (benefiting someone else). Each response was manipulated in terms of response latency and speech rate accommodation. Participants rated each response as either honest or deceitful, as well as confidence in their judgments and seriousness of each lie. Results showed that response latency was generally weighted more heavily than speech rate accommodation as a cue to deception. Early and on-time latencies were viewed as truthful, while late latencies were viewed as deceitful. In addition, several significant differences emerged as a function of type of lie (selfvs. other-oriented), gender of speaker, and gender of participants. Results are discussed in terms of cognitive models, sex differences in deception, relationship between the speakers, and gender expectancies/stereotypes. Nonverbal Cues and Deception, 4 Are You Lying to Me? Using Nonverbal Cues to Detect Deception – “Hey, do you want to go see a movie tonight? ” – “Sure, that sounds fine. ” Simply from reading the previous two sentences, what inferences can you make? Can you conclude anything about personality, gender, mood, etc.? What about honesty – does the second individual actually want to go to the movies, or is he/she simply willing to go along with the first person’s wish? Clearly, with just the physical words and no context, it is impossible to infer anything for certain. If we knew more about the speakers, if we could listen to them, if we could see them – that, however, would open up a whole new realm of possibilities. Deception as an Everyday Occurrence We may not want to admit it – we may not even be aware of it – but lying is a part of everyday life. While some deception can be very serious or significant, most lies are often small or inconsequential. Nonetheless, they are still lies. Two studies by DePaulo and colleagues (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein 1996) used the format of a diary study to examine the existence of lies in everyday life (both studies used the same data sets, but examined them in different ways). For this study, participants (both undergraduate students and regular community members of all ages) were required to keep a diary over the course of a week. In this diary, participants were instructed to record all of their social interactions during the week, as well as all lies they told during these interactions. For the purposes of the study, a social interaction was defined as “any exchange between you and another person that lasts 10 min or more.in which the behavior of one person is in Nonverbal Cues and Deception, 5 response to the behavior of another person” (DePaulo et al, 1996, p. 981). Participants were also told that “a lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone. Both the intent to deceive and the actual deception must occur” (p. 981, italics in original). For each lie they told, participants had to record the initials and gender of the person/people to whom they told the lie, briefly describe the lie and the reason why the lie was told, and rate the degree of planning the lie, the importance of not getting caught, their feelings while telling the lie, etc. All social interactions and lies were coded, and results showed that, on average, college students tell two lies per day, and community members tell one lie per day. Undergrads reported lying in about one third of their social interactions, while people from the community lied in one fifth. Overall, participants thought that they were relatively successful in telling their lies (i.e. not getting caught). They also considered themselves to lie less frequently than others their age. In addition, participants generally did not consider their lies to be serious, but participants still felt more uncomfortable while telling a lie and immediately afterward, relative to how they felt immediately before telling the lie. Although this study is non-experimental, it offers a clear view of the common occurrence of deception in everyday life. It is important to note that there are two sides to the study of deception: there is the speaker’s perspective, as well as the observer’s perspective. In other words, researchers have studied deception in terms of the person telling a lie (the DePaulo diary study mentioned above, for example), but also in terms of the person hearing a lie. Both perspectives are central to the study of deception, since both are commonly experienced on a regular basis. There is an almost constant appraisal of whether or not it is best to tell the truth, and whether or not it seems someone else is telling the truth. On an individual level, it is important to be able to make these decisions. Though lying comes with some amount of social stigma, it can serve important Nonverbal Cues and Deception, 6 purposes, whether in terms of self-preservation or protection of others. It is also important to be able to successfully detect deception in others, in order to avoid being victimized by others’ dishonesty. Different Types of Lies Studies on deception have shown there are various ways in which to categorize different types of lies. For example, lies can be categorized by their seriousness (major versus inconsequential), to whom the lies are told (strangers versus acquaintances versus close friends), or planning (planned versus spontaneous lies). One relatively common categorization relates to the actual content of the lie: it can involve an outright fabrication of information or an exaggeration of the truth (e.g. Lees Haley, 1984). Another common type of categorization relates to the motivation for lying. A study looking at lying on the internet, for example, categorized lies in terms of the motivation to conceal one’s identity, to make oneself appear more attractive, or to enact different roles not normally experienced (Utz, 2005). Somewhat related to the question of motivation, an increasingly common way of categorizing lies is through the distinction between selfand other-oriented lies. This distinction refers to the target of a lie, i.e. about what or to whom the speaker is lying. Self-Oriented vs. Other-Oriented Lies Do people lie primarily about themselves, about other people, or about impersonal issues such as objects or events? To examine this question, researchers have looked at the distinction between self-oriented and other-oriented lies. Self-oriented lies are lies that are told to make the self look better. Self-oriented lies are solely used for one’s own benefit (hence, they can also be called self-benefiting lies). For example, lying about the fact that you were the one who broke a Nonverbal Cues and Deception, 7 window is a self-oriented lie told to protect the liar from punishment or from looking bad (DePaulo et al., 1996). Conversely, other-oriented lies are lies told to make someone else look better. For example, saying that your friend’s cookies are really good when you don’t actually think so is an other-oriented lie told to protect your friend from feeling bad, or simply to make your friend feel good (DePaulo et al., 1996). Another important difference between self-oriented and other-oriented lies is their respective seriousness. Self-oriented lies are viewed more negatively because they are purely self-serving. Other-oriented lies, on the other hand, are viewed more positively because the willingness to lie for someone else’s benefit actually reflects well on the self. It is important to note that, theoretically, a lie that belittles another person could be considered an other-oriented lie, because it is about someone else. However, using the classification of other-oriented lies as benefiting another person, this would actually be categorized as a self-oriented lie, since the derogation of others has the self-serving motivation of enhancing the self. Similarly, lies that are meant to avoid conflict or prevent others from becoming angry with you may also directly refer to another person, but actually benefit the self. DePaulo et al. (1996) examined this distinction within their diary study. Results showed that participants generally told more self-serving than other-oriented lies. In fact, more than 80% of participants’ lies were, in part, about the participants themselves. Still, approximately one out of every four lies was considered other-oriented, in that they were told to benefit other people. With self-oriented lies, participants tended to use them for what DePaulo et al. called “psychological” reasons, as opposed to materialistic benefits. In other words, self-oriented lies were most often told for self-presentation and emotion regulation (e.g. making oneself appear smarter than what one actually is). Nonverbal Cues and Deception, 8 Sex Differences The same DePaulo et al. study (1996) also revealed a number of interesting gender effects. This study examined gender within the reference of selfvs. other-oriented lies and found that women tell more other-oriented lies than men, while men tell more self-oriented lies than women. Similarly, women are told more other-oriented lies, while men are told more selforiented lies. Within the undergraduate population of the study, 50.57% of lies told by men were self-oriented lies, but only 42.42% of lies told by women were self-oriented. Conversely, 15.25% of lies told by men were other-oriented lies, while 32.21% of lies told by women were otheroriented. Results also showed that interactions between two undergraduate females were especially likely to feature a high number of other-oriented lies and a low number of selforiented