Exploring the effect of verbal and nonverbal cues on perceptions of deception

Communication Quarterly

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 359-375

  Henningsen, David Dryden ^a   Valde, Kathleen S ^a   Davies, Elaine ^a  

^a Department of Communication ^*

Author keywords

Deception; Involvement; Nonverbal Communication; Verbal Communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 59149098630     PISSN: 01463373     EISSN: 17464102     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01463370500101329     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anderson, DE, DePaulo, BM, Ansfield, ME, Tickle, JJ, and Green, E. (1999). Beliefs about cues to deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom?. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23: 66–89.
2. Bothwell, R, and Jalil, M. (1992). The credibility of nervous witnesses. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7: 581–586.
3. Buller, DB, Comstock, J, Aune, RK, and Strzyzewski, KD. (1989). The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13: 155–170.
4. Burgoon, JK, Buller, DB, and Floyd, K. (2001). Does participation affect deception success? A test of the interactivity principle. Human Communication Research, 27: 503–534.
5. Chaiken, S, and Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 460–473.
6. DePaulo, BM, Lindsay, JJ, Malone, BE, Muhlenbruck, L, Charlton, K, and Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 74–118.
7. Ekman P, (1985) Telling Lies New York W. W. Norton
8. Feeley, TH, and Young, MJ. (2000). Self-reported cues about deceptive and truthful communication: The effects of cognitive capacity and communicator veracity. Communication Quarterly, 48: 101–119.
9. Feldman, RS, and Chesley, RB. (1984). Who is lying, who is not: An attributional analysis of the effects of nonverbal behavior on judgments of defendant believability. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2: 451–461.
10. Forrest, JA, and Feldman, RS. (2000). Detecting deception and judge's involvement: Lower task involvement leads to better lie detection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 118–125.
11. Freedman, JL, Krismer, K, MacDonald, JE, and Cunningham, JA. (1994). Severity of penalty, seriousness of the charge, and mock jurors’ verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 18: 189–202.
12. Granhag, PA, and Stromwall, LA. (2001). Deception detection: Interrogators’ and observers’ decoding of consecutive statements. The Journal of Psychology, 135: 603–620.
13. Granhag, PA, and Stromwall, LA. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and non-verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16: 243–257.
14. Hendry, SH, Shaffer, DR, and Peacock, D. (1989). On testifying in one's own behalf: Interactive effects of evidence strength on defendant's testimonial demeanor on mock juror's decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 539–545.
15. Henningsen, DD, Cruz, MG, and Morr, MC. (2000). Pattern violations and perceptions of deception. Communication Reports, 13: 1–10.
16. Kaplan, MF, and Krupa, S. (1986). Severe penalties under the control of others can reduce guilt verdicts. Law and Psychology Review, 10: 1–18.
17. Kassin, SM, and Fong, CJ. (1999). “I'm innocent!”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law & Human Behavior, 23: 499–516.
18. Kraut, RE. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 380–391.
19. Kurasawa, T. (1988). Effects of contextual expectancies on deception-detection. Japanese Psychological Research, 30: 114–121.
20. Levine, TR. (2001). Dichotomous and continuous views of deception: A reexamination of deception ratings in information manipulation theory. Communication Research Reports, 20: 230–240.
21. Levine, TR, Asada, KJK, and Lindsey, LLM. (2003). The relative impact of violation type and lie severity on judgments of message deceitfulness. Communication Research Reports, 20: 208–218.
22. Levine, TR, Park, HS, and McCornack, SA. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect”. Communication Monographs, 66: 125–144.
23. Levine, TR, and McCornack, SA. (2001). Behavioral adaptation, confidence, and heuristic-based explanations of the probing effect. Human Communication Research, 27: 471–502.
24. Miller GR, Burgoon JK, (1982) Factors affecting assessments of witness credibility In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.) The Psychology of the Courtroom pp. 169–194 New York Academic Press
25. Park, HS, Levine, TR, McCornack, SA, Morrison, K, and Ferrara, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69: 144–157.
26. Seiter, JS. (1997). Honest or deceitful? A study of persons’ mental models for judging veracity. Human Communication Research, 24: 216–259.
27. Stiff, JB. (1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta-analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communication Monographs, 53: 75–89.
28. Stiff, JB, Miller, GR, Sleight, C, Mongeau, P, Garlick, R, and Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 555–564.
29. Toris, C, and DePaulo, BM. (1985). Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 1063–1073.
30. Vrij, A, Edward, K, Roberts, KP, and Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24: 239–263.
31. Wayne, JH, Riordan, CM, and Thomas, KM. (2001). Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 179–187.
32. Zuckerman, M, Koestner, R, and Driver, R. (1981). Beliefs about cues associated with deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6: 105–115.