Decoding deception: A look at the process

This study examined the effects of sex and response format on the process of decoding deceptive messages. A videotape was made containing 32 items (16 honest and 16 dishonest) in which encoders described a person they liked and a person they disliked both honestly and deceptively. Two response formats were used: (1) the rating of items on a six-point liking scale and a six-point deception scale and (2) a forced choice format whereby subjects had to choose between the four types of items. Decoders were given five sets of scores: (a) accuracy scores, (b) awareness of deception scores, (c) confidence scores, (d) cues scores, which were the number of items on which they mentioned using a particular type of cue (verbal, nonverbal, or both combined), and (e) a measure of response time for each item. In the accuracy analyses, there were so significant main effects for sex for either format. However, when decoding males, females (relative to males) tended to read the overt rather than the covert, affect. Females, however, were more aware of the possibility of deception but did not differentiate between honest and dishonest items. Males were more confident and took less time than females to make a decision. Females mentioned the use of cues more than males did. There were no significant correlations between accuracy and the process variables although for males, but not females, there were significant correlations among the process variables for both honest items and dishonest items.

[1]  H. Friedman.  Magnitude of experimental effect and a table for its rapid estimation. , 1968 .

[2]  Judith A. Hall.  Nonverbal sex differences , 1984 .

[3]  Patricia Noller,et al.  Sex differences in nonverbal communication: Advantage lost or supremacy regained? , 1986 .

[4]  R. Feldman.  Nonverbal Disclosure of Teacher Deception and Interpersonal Affect. , 1976 .

[5]  Ross Buck,et al.  The communication of emotion , 1984 .

[6]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Actual and Perceived Cues to Deception: A Closer Look at Speech , 1982 .

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

[8]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Diagnosing deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and nonverbal cues , 1982 .

[9]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. , 1979 .

[10]  S. Oskamp.  OVERCONFIDENCE IN CASE-STUDY JUDGMENTS. , 1965, Journal of consulting psychology.

[11]  B. Depaulo,et al.  On-the-Job Experience and Skill at Detecting Deception1 , 1986 .

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

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

[14]  Judith A. Hall.  Gender Effects in Decoding Nonverbal Cues , 1978 .

[15]  S. Lichtenstein,et al.  Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1 , 1977 .

[16]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. , 1983 .

[17]  F. Doré,et al.  Accuracy and Latency of Judgment of Facial Expressions of Emotions , 1983, Perceptual and motor skills.