Fishy-looking liars: deception judgment from expectancy violation.

To explain how people judge that others are lying, an expectancy-violation model is proposed. According to the model, deception is perceived from nonverbal behavior that violates normative expectation. To test the model, 3 experiments were conducted, 2 in the United States and 1 in India. In each experiment, people described acquaintances while exhibiting weird nonverbal behaviors, such as arm raising, head tilting, and staring. Other Ss watched the videotapes of the descriptions and made deception judgments. Consistent with the expectancy-violation model, both American undergraduates and Indian illiterates inferred deception from weird behaviors. Implications of the model are discussed.

[1]  John H. Mueller,et al.  Perceived Honesty and Face Memory , 1988, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[2]  B. Depaulo.  Success at Detecting Deception: Liability or Skill? , 1981 .

[3]  P. Ekman,et al.  Who can catch a liar? , 1991, The American psychologist.

[4]  H. Friedman.  The interactive effects of facial expressions of emotion and verbal messages on perceptions of affective meaning , 1979 .

[5]  C. F. Bond,et al.  Lie detection across cultures , 1990 .

[6]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal Expectancies and the Evaluative Consequences of Violations , 1990 .

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

[8]  Michael Harris Bond,et al.  The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology , 1988 .

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

[10]  W. Hays.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. , 1983 .

[11]  C. F. Bond,et al.  The miscommunication of deception: An adaptive perspective , 1985 .

[12]  A. Tesser,et al.  Deceptive Behavior in Social Relationships: A Consequence of Violated Expectations , 1988 .

[13]  R. Freedle,et al.  Aspects of language pragmatics and the social perception of lying , 1974, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[14]  G. Hemsley,et al.  The effect of looking behavior on perceptions of a communicator's credibility , 1978 .

[15]  R. Kirk.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[16]  Merrill Carlsmith.  Methods of research in social psychology , 1976 .

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

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

[19]  B. Depaulo,et al.  The Motivational Impairment Effect in the Communication of Deception , 1989 .

[20]  E. E. Jones.  Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships , 1984 .

[21]  M. Bullock,et al.  Interpreting contradictory communications: Age and context effects , 1990 .

[22]  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 .

[23]  E. Langer,et al.  Staring and approach: An interpretation of the stare as a nonspecific activator. , 1976 .

[24]  L. Saxe,et al.  Lying Thoughts of an Applied Social Psychologist , 1991 .

[25]  K. Rotenberg,et al.  Children's use of a verbal-nonverbal consistency principle to infer truth and lying. , 1989, Child development.

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

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