Believed cues to deception: Judgments in self‐generated trivial and serious situations

Purpose. To investigate the beliefs that people hold about the cues to deception in serious and trivial lies.Method. A questionnaire study considered the beliefs which people have about the cues to deception in themselves and other people in both trivial and serious lies. Participants were asked to consider how likely it was that a number of verbal and non-verbal behaviours would give themselves or someone else away during deception. Half the participants considered cues to deception in themselves and the remainder considered cues in other people. All participants were asked to make a judgment on cues to deception in both trivial and serious situations.Results. It was predicted that making the consequences of the lie both salient and meaningful to participants would make participants less stereotypical in their beliefs. Results partially supported these hypotheses - serious lies were associated with more nervous behaviours than trivial ones and a total of six behaviours were regarded as occurring significantly less often in trivial lies than in truthful situations.Conclusions. While similar results were found for serious self-generated lies to those found in previous research using vignettes, there was some suggestion that the use of a more individually salient lying situation did reduce the reliance on stereotyped behaviour. The believed decrease in certain behaviours during trivial lies is a promising result, and these results are discussed with reference to the roles that stereotypes and heuristics play in ineffective lie detection. Language: en

[1]  Mary Ann Campbell,et al.  The Influence of Judge, Target, and Stimulus Characteristics on the Accuracy of Detecting Deceit , 2002 .

[2]  Ray Bull,et al.  Detecting true lies: police officers' ability to detect suspects' lies. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  Rachel Taylor,et al.  BELIEFS ABOUT THE CUES TO DECEPTION IN HIGH- AND LOW-STAKE SITUATIONS , 2003 .

[4]  Jeffrey J. Walczyk,et al.  LYING PERSON‐TO‐PERSON ABOUT LIFE EVENTS: A COGNITIVE FRAMEWORK FOR LIE DETECTION , 2005 .

[5]  Günter Köhnken,et al.  Training police officers to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does it work? , 1987 .

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

[7]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The Nature of Arousal and Nonverbal Indices , 1989 .

[8]  A. Vrij,et al.  Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: the case of a convicted murderer , 2001 .

[9]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity , 1999 .

[10]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  Lie experts' beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception , 1996 .

[11]  Ray Bull,et al.  People's insight into their own behaviour and speech content while lying. , 2001, British journal of psychology.

[12]  Stephen Porter,et al.  Truth, Lies, and Videotape: An Investigation of the Ability of Federal Parole Officers to Detect Deception , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[13]  Paul Ekman,et al.  A Few Can Catch a Liar , 1999 .

[14]  Leif A. Strömwall,et al.  Granting asylum or not? Migration board personnel's beliefs about deception , 2005 .

[15]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Cues to deception. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Beliefs About Cues to Deception: Mindless Stereotypes or Untapped Wisdom? , 1999 .

[17]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Behavioral Correlates of Deception in a Simulated Police Interview , 1995 .

[18]  Leif A. Strömwall,et al.  Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals' beliefs about deception , 2004 .

[19]  A. Vrij,et al.  Credibility judgements of detectives: the impact of nonverbal behavior, social skills, and physical characteristics on impression formation. , 1993, The Journal of social psychology.

[20]  Maureen O’Sullivan The Fundamental Attribution Error in Detecting Deception: The Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Effect , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[21]  Ray Bull,et al.  Lay Persons' and Police Officers' Beliefs Regarding Deceptive Behaviour , 1996 .

[22]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Training lie detectors to use nonverbal cues instead of global heuristics , 1993 .

[23]  Police Officers' and Students' Beliefs about Telling and Detecting Trivial and Serious Lies , 2003 .

[24]  P. Ekman,et al.  The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  Ray Bull,et al.  Suspects, Lies, and Videotape: An Analysis of Authentic High-Stake Liars , 2002, Law and human behavior.

[26]  Pär Anders Granhag,et al.  How to Detect Deception? Arresting the Beliefs of Police Officers, Prosecutors and Judges , 2003 .

[27]  Objective and subjective indicators of deception , 1993 .

[28]  A. Vrij,et al.  The effects of varying stake and cognitive complexity on beliefs about the cues to deception , 2000 .