Exploring the Effect of Verbal and Nonverbal Cues on Perceptions of Deception

How impressions of credibility are formed in trial type settings is examined using 173 participants. It is hypothesized that the severity of the penalty faced by an accused individual will increase participant involvement with the accused's testimony. Involvement is predicted to interact with verbal and nonverbal cues associated with deception to influence jurors’ honesty judgments. Although penalty severity did not influence participant involvement, results indicate that involvement moderates the effect of verbal cues, but not nonverbal cues, on perceptions of deception.

[1]  Pattern violations and perceptions of deception , 2000 .

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

[3]  M. Kaplan,et al.  Severe Penalties under the Control of Others Can Reduce Guilt Verdicts. , 1985 .

[4]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Relationships of self‐perceived communication competence and communication apprehension with willingness to communicate: A comparison with first and second languages in Micronesia , 2003 .

[5]  Leif A. Strömwall,et al.  Repeated interrogations: verbal and non‐verbal cues to deception , 2002 .

[6]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  The relative impact of violation type and lie severity on judgments of message deceitfulness , 2003 .

[7]  Gerald R. Miller,et al.  Explanations for Visual Cue Primacy in Judgments of Honesty and Deceit , 1989 .

[8]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Does Participation Affect Deception Success? A Test of the Interactivity Principle , 2001 .

[9]  J. Freedman,et al.  Severity of penalty, seriousness of the charge, and mock jurors' verdicts , 1994 .

[10]  P A Granhag,et al.  Deception Detection: Interrogators' and Observers' Decoding of Consecutive Statements , 2001, The Journal of psychology.

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

[12]  John S. Seiter.  Honest or Deceitful? A Study of Persons' Mental Models for Judging Veracity , 1997 .

[13]  R. Bothwell,et al.  The credibility of nervous witnesses. , 1992 .

[14]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  How people really detect lies , 2002 .

[15]  James B. Stiff.  Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta‐analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes , 1986 .

[16]  David R. Shaffer,et al.  On testifying in one's own behalf: Interactive effects of evidential strength and defendant's testimonial demeanor on mock jurors' decisions. , 1989 .

[17]  James A. Forrest,et al.  Detecting Deception and Judge’s Involvement: Lower Task Involvement Leads to Better Lie Detection , 2000 .

[18]  T. Kurasawa.  Effects of contextual expectancies on deception-detection , 1988 .

[19]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Behavioral adaptation, confidence, and heuristic-based explanations of the probing effect , 2001 .

[20]  R. Bull,et al.  Detecting Deceit via Analysis of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior , 2000 .

[21]  R. Feldman,et al.  Who is lying, who is not: An attributional analysis of the effects of nonverbal behavior on judgements of defendant believability , 1984 .

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

[23]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Does Participation Affect Deception Success , 2001 .

[24]  C. M. Riordan,et al.  Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[25]  T. Feeley,et al.  Self‐reported cues about deceptive and truthful communication: The effects of cognitive capacity and communicator veracity , 2000 .

[26]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. , 1978 .

[27]  Christina T. Fong,et al.  “I'm Innocent!”: Effects of Training on Judgments of Truth and Deception in the Interrogation Room , 1999 .

[28]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions. , 1984 .

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

[30]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Telling lies. , 1979, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[33]  T. Levine.  Dichotomous and continuous views of deception: A reexamination of deception ratings in information manipulation theory , 2001 .