Interpersonal deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors.

This experiment compared the deception detection skills of conversational participants and observers. Participants were expected to have a more pronounced truth‐bias than observers. They were also predicted to be less accurate detecting deception than observers because of the cognitive and communication requirements of conversational management. Each of fifty observers viewed two videotaped interactions between an interviewer (i.e., conversational participant) and two interviewees (i.e., sources) who either told the truth or deceived. Conversational participants attributed more truth to sources than did observers and they were less accurate detectors than observers. When not told about the deception manipulation, observers relied on more accurate behavioral cues than participants. When informed about deception, participants relied on inaccurate facial cues, whereas observers relied on inaccurate vocal cues to judge deceit.

[1]  R. Street,et al.  Speech Evaluation Differences as a Function of Perspective (Participant Versus Observer) and Presentational Medium , 1988 .

[2]  M. D. Storms,et al.  Videotape and the attribution process: reversing actors' and observers' points of view. , 1973, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Malcolm R. Parks,et al.  Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side of Trust , 1986 .

[4]  R. Koestner,et al.  Beliefs about cues associated with deception , 1981 .

[5]  S. J. Marwit,et al.  Comparison of multidimensional decoding of affect from audio, video and audiovideo recordings. , 1976, Sociometry.

[6]  Gerald R. Miller,et al.  The Truth-Deception Attribution: Effects of Familiarity on the Ability of Observers to Detect Deception. , 1980 .

[7]  H. H. Clark.  Psychology and language , 1977 .

[8]  Dale G. Leathers,et al.  Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective , 1980 .

[9]  P. Ekman,et al.  Detecting deception from the body or face. , 1974 .

[10]  R. Riggio,et al.  Verbal and nonverbal cues as mediators of deception ability , 1987 .

[11]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception , 1982 .

[12]  Malcolm R. Parks,et al.  What Women Know that Men don't: Sex Differences in Determining the Truth Behind Deceptive Messages , 1990 .

[13]  M. Zuckerman.  Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception , 1981 .

[14]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Decoding discrepant nonverbal cues. , 1978 .

[15]  G. Miller,et al.  Familiarity and lie detection: A replication and extension , 1982 .

[16]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication , 1987 .

[17]  R. Kelly Aune,et al.  Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers , 1987 .

[18]  David B. Buller,et al.  Interpersonal deception. I : Deceivers' reactions to receivers' suspicions and probing , 1991 .

[19]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Applying a social meaning model to relational message interpretations of conversational involvement: Comparing observer and participant perspectives , 1991 .

[20]  P. Ekman,et al.  Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception †. , 1969, Psychiatry.

[21]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis , 1984 .

[22]  Gerald M. Goldhaber,et al.  Perjury and deceptive judgments: How the timing and modality of witness deception affects jurors' deceptive judgments , 1988 .

[23]  R. Kelly Aune,et al.  The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers , 1989 .

[24]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer , 1973 .

[25]  M. Snyder.  Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. , 1974 .

[26]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Communication and social cognition. , 1984 .

[27]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue , 1988 .

[28]  T. Levine,et al.  When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception , 1990 .

[29]  D. Marlowe,et al.  The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence , 1980 .

[30]  Ronald E. Riggio,et al.  Individual Differences and Cues to Deception , 1983 .

[31]  James B. Stiff,et al.  Truth Biases and Aroused Suspicion in Relational Deception , 1992 .

[32]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[33]  E. E. Jones,et al.  The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. , 1972 .

[34]  Gerald R. Miller,et al.  "Come to think of it…": Interrogative probes, deceptive communication, and deception detection. , 1986 .