Human Communication Research Issn 0360-3989 Sender Demeanor: Individual Differences in Sender Believability Have a Powerful Impact on Deception Detection Judgments

Sender demeanor is an individual difference in the believability of message senders that is conceptually independent of actual honesty. Recent research suggests that sender demeanor may be the most influential source of variation in deception detection judgments. Sender demeanor was varied in five experiments (N = 30, 113, 182, 30, and 35) to create demeanor‐veracity matched and demeanor‐veracity mismatched conditions. The sender demeanor induction explained as much as 98% of the variance indetection accuracy.Three additional studies (N = 30, 113, and 104) investigated the behavioral profiles of more and less believable senders. The results document the strong impact of sender effects in deception detection and provide an explanation of the low-accuracy ceiling in the previous findings.

[1]  Judith A. Hall,et al.  Facial and vocal cues of deception and honesty , 1979 .

[2]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Increasing Deception Detection Accuracy with Strategic Questioning , 2010 .

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

[4]  Maria Hartwig,et al.  Strategic Use of Evidence During Police Interviews: When Training to Detect Deception Works , 2006, Law and human behavior.

[5]  Michael G. Aamodt,et al.  Who can best catch a liar?: A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. , 2006 .

[6]  Maureen O’Sullivan,et al.  Home runs and humbugs: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008). , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Accuracy of Deception Judgments , 2006, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[8]  G. D. Bond,et al.  Deception Detection Expertise , 2008, Law and human behavior.

[9]  T. Levine,et al.  Content in Context Improves Deception Detection Accuracy , 2010 .

[10]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

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

[12]  Erving Goffman,et al.  The Nature of Deference and Demeanor , 1956 .

[13]  T. Levine.  A Few Transparent Liars Explaining 54% Accuracy in Deception Detection Experiments , 2010 .

[14]  Pär Anders Granhag,et al.  The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts , 2005 .

[15]  Mark G. Frank,et al.  Police Lie Detection Accuracy: The Effect of Lie Scenario , 2009, Law and human behavior.

[16]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  The Prevalence of Lying in America: Three Studies of Self-Reported Lies , 2010 .

[17]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect” , 1999 .

[18]  Paul Ekman,et al.  The wizards of deception detection. , 2004 .

[19]  John Thibaut,et al.  VISUAL INTERACTION IN RELATION TO MACHIAVELLIANISM AND AN UNETHICAL ACT. , 1966 .

[20]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  To Catch a Liar: Challenges for Research in Lie Detection Training , 2003 .

[21]  P. Ekman,et al.  Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

[23]  S. Weinberger.  Airport security: Intent to deceive? , 2010, Nature.

[24]  Peter Banton,et al.  A World of Lies , 2006, Journal of cross-cultural psychology.