Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Cues to Lying May be Deceptive: Speaker and Listener Behaviour in an Interactive Game of Deception Cover

Cues to Lying May be Deceptive: Speaker and Listener Behaviour in an Interactive Game of Deception

Journal of Cognition
Volume 1 (2017): Issue 1
By: Jia E. Loy,  Hannah Rohde and  Martin Corley  
Open Access
|Sep 2018

References

  1. 1Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extention of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov, B. N., & Caski, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory, 267–281.
    Back to article
  2. 2Akaike, H. (1978). On the likelihood of a time series model. The Statistician, 217–235. DOI: 10.2307/2988185
    Back to article
  3. 3Akehurst, L., Köhnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6), 461–471. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<;461::AID-ACP413>3.0.CO;2-2
    Back to article
  4. 4Anolli, L., & Ciceri, R. (1997). The voice of deception: Vocal strategies of naive and able liars. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21(4), 259–284. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024916214403
    Back to article
  5. 5Arciuli, J., Mallard, D., & Villar, G. (2010). ‘Um, I can tell you’re lying’: Linguistic markers of deception versus truth-telling in speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(03), 397–411. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716410000044
    Back to article
  6. 6Arnold, T. W. (2010). Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s Information Criterion. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(6), 1175–1178. DOI: 10.1111/j.1937-2817.2010.tb01236.x
    Back to article
  7. 7Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 457–474. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002
    Back to article
  8. 8Barr, D. J., & Seyfeddinipur, M. (2010). The role of fillers in listener attributions for speaker disfluency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25. DOI: 10.1080/01690960903047122
    Back to article
  9. 9Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using eigen and S4 [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (R package version 1.1-6).
    Back to article
  10. 10Benus, S., Enos, F., Hirschberg, J. B., & Shriberg, E. (2006). Pauses in deceptive speech. In: Proceedings of the ISCA 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody.
    Back to article
  11. 11Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from: http://www.praat.org.
    Back to article
  12. 12Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
    Back to article
  13. 13Boomer, D. S., & Dittmann, A. T. (1964). Speech rate, filled pause, and body movement in interviews. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 139(4), 324–327. DOI: 10.1097/00005053-196410000-00003
    Back to article
  14. 14Broen, P. A., & Siegel, G. M. (1972). Variations in normal speech disfluencies. Language and Speech, 15(3), 219–231. DOI: 10.1177/002383097201500302
    Back to article
  15. 15Buller, D. B., Comstock, J., Aune, R. K., & Strzyzewski, K. D. (1989). The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13(3), 155–170. DOI: 10.1007/BF00987047
    Back to article
  16. 16Burgoon, J. K., & Floyd, K. (2000). Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 64(3), 243–267. DOI: 10.1080/10570310009374675
    Back to article
  17. 17Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer.
    Back to article
  18. 18Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., & Huyvaert, K. P. (2011). AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: Some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 23–35. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6
    Back to article
  19. 19Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–111. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
    Back to article
  20. 20Curran-Everett, D. (2000). Multiple comparisons: Philosophies and illustrations. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 279(1), R1–R8. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.2000.279.1.R1
    Back to article
  21. 21DePaulo, B. M., Blank, A. L., Swaim, G. W., & Hairfield, J. G. (1992). Expressiveness and expressive control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 276–285. DOI: 10.1177/0146167292183003
    Back to article
  22. 22DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
    Back to article
  23. 23Doherty-Sneddon, G., Bruce, V., Bonner, L., Longbotham, S., & Doyle, C. (2002). Development of gaze aversion as disengagement from visual information. Developmental Psychology, 38(3), 438–445. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.3.438
    Back to article
  24. 24Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Phelps, F. G. (2005). Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory & Cognition, 33(4), 727–733. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195338
    Back to article
  25. 25Ekman, P. (2001). Telling lies: Cues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage (3rd ed.). New York: Norton.
    Back to article
  26. 26Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1(1), 49–98. DOI: 10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49
    Back to article
  27. 27Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., Friesen, W. V., & Scherer, K. R. (1991). Invited article: Face, voice, and body in detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(2), 125–135. DOI: 10.1007/BF00998267
    Back to article
  28. 28Fox Tree, J. E. (1999). Listening in on monologues and dialogues. Discourse Processes, 27(1), 35–53. DOI: 10.1080/01638539909545049
    Back to article
  29. 29Fox Tree, J. E. (2007). Folk notions of um and uh, you know, and like. Text & Talk, 27(3), 297–314. DOI: 10.1515/TEXT.2007.012
    Back to article
  30. 30Frith, C. (2000). The role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the selection of oction as revealed by functional imaging. In: Monsell, S., & Driver, J. (eds.), Control of cognitive processes, 549–565. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Back to article
  31. 31Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–522. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00395
    Back to article
  32. 32Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. Academic Press.
    Back to article
  33. 33Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2000). Effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail. Psychology, Crime and Law, 6(3), 197–218. DOI: 10.1080/10683160008409804
    Back to article
  34. 34Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and non-verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 243–257. DOI: 10.1002/acp.784
    Back to article
  35. 35Gullberg, M., & Kita, S. (2009). Attention to speech-accompanying gestures: Eye movements and information uptake. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(4), 251–277. DOI: 10.1007/s10919-009-0073-2
    Back to article
  36. 36Hart, C. L., Fillmore, D. G., & Griffith, J. D. (2009). Indirect detection of deception: Looking for change. Current Research in Social Psychology, 14(9), 134–142.
    Back to article
  37. 37Hartsuiker, R. J., & Notebaert, L. (2010). Lexical access problems lead to disfluencies in speech. Experimental Psychology, 57(3), 169–177. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000021
    Back to article
  38. 38Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F., Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? a lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 643–659. DOI: 10.1037/a0023589
    Back to article
  39. 39Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F., Jr. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661–676. DOI: 10.1002/acp.3052
    Back to article
  40. 40Hurvich, C. M., & Tsai, C.-L. (1989). Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika, 76(2), 297–307. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/76.2.297
    Back to article
  41. 41Johnson, R., Henkell, H., Simon, E., & Zhu, J. (2008). The self in conflict: The role of executive processes during truthful and deceptive responses about attitudes. Neuroimage, 39(1), 469–482. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.032
    Back to article
  42. 42King, J. P. J., Loy, J. E., & Corley, M. (2018). Contextual effects on online pragmatic inferences of deception. Discourse Processes, 55(2), 123–135.
    Back to article
  43. 43Kjellmer, G. (2003). Hesitation, in defence of er and erm. English Studies, 84(2), 170–198. DOI: 10.1076/enst.84.2.170.14903
    Back to article
  44. 44Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1), 79–86. DOI: 10.1214/aoms/1177729694
    Back to article
  45. 45Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: A package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v025.i01
    Back to article
  46. 46Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect”. Communications Monographs, 66(2), 125–144. DOI: 10.1080/03637759909376468
    Back to article
  47. 47Loy, J. E., Rohde, H., & Corley, M. (2017). Effects of disfluency in online interpretation of deception. Cognitive Science, 41, 1434–1456. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12378
    Back to article
  48. 48Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2002). Suspects, lies, and videotape: An analysis of authentic high-stake liars. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 365–376. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015332606792
    Back to article
  49. 49Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 137–149. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.137
    Back to article
  50. 50Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Opensesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
    Back to article
  51. 51Merlo, S., & Mansur, L. L. (2004). Descriptive discourse: Topic familiarity and disfluencies. Journal of Communicative Disorders, 37(6), 489–503. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.03.002
    Back to article
  52. 52Murtaugh, P. A. (2014). In defense of p values. Ecology, 95(3), 611–617. DOI: 10.1890/13-0590.1
    Back to article
  53. 53Pagano, A. M., & Arnold, T. W. (2009). Detection probabilities for ground-based breeding waterfowl surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73, 392–398. DOI: 10.2193/2007-411
    Back to article
  54. 54Quek, F., McNeill, D., Bryll, R., Kirbas, C., Arslan, H., McCullough, K. E., Ansari, R., et al. (2000). Gesture, speech, and gaze cues for discourse segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2, 247–254.
    Back to article
  55. 55R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from: https://www.R-project.org/.
    Back to article
  56. 56Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 211–232. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90008-X
    Back to article
  57. 57Shriberg, E. (1996). Disfluencies in switchboard. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 96, 11–14.
    Back to article
  58. 58Sip, K. E., Lynge, M., Wallentin, M., McGregor, W. B., Frith, C. D., & Roepstorff, A. (2010). The production and detection of deception in an interactive game. Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3619–3626. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.08.013
    Back to article
  59. 59Snipes, M., & Taylor, D. C. (2014). Model selection and Akaike Information Criteria: An example from wine ratings and prices. Wine Economics and Policy, 3(1), 3–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.wep.2014.03.001
    Back to article
  60. 60Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174
    Back to article
  61. 61Spence, S. A., Kaylor-Hughes, C., Farrow, T. F., & Wilkinson, I. D. (2008). Speaking of secrets and lies: The contribution of ventrolateral prefrontal cortex to vocal deception. Neuroimage, 40(3), 1411–1418. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.035
    Back to article
  62. 62Spivey, M. J., & Dale, R. (2006). Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 207–211. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00437.x
    Back to article
  63. 63Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 421–446. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1190
    Back to article
  64. 64Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(1), 1–34. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1
    Back to article
  65. 65Sutter, M. (2009). Deception through telling the truth?! Experimental evidence from individuals and teams. The Economic Journal, 119(534), 47–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02205.x
    Back to article
  66. 66Villar, G., Arciuli, J., & Mallard, D. (2012). Use of “um” in the deceptive speech of a convicted murderer. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(01), 83–95. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716411000117
    Back to article
  67. 67Vrij, A. (1995). Behavioral correlates of deception in a simulated police interview. The Journal of Psychology, 129(1), 15–28. DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1995.9914944
    Back to article
  68. 68Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice. New York: Wiley.
    Back to article
  69. 69Vrij, A. (2008). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection: A plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(10), 1323–1336. DOI: 10.1177/0093854808321530
    Back to article
  70. 70Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006). Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the general public’s beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(2), 297–312. DOI: 10.1348/135532505X60816
    Back to article
  71. 71Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 899–909. DOI: 10.1177/0146167201277012
    Back to article
  72. 72Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4), 239–263. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006610329284
    Back to article
  73. 73Vrij, A., & Heaven, S. (1999). Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5(3), 203–215. DOI: 10.1080/10683169908401767
    Back to article
  74. 74Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 187–203. DOI: 10.1002/1099-0720(200103/04)15:2<;187::AID-ACP696>3.0.CO;2-A
    Back to article
  75. 75Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2004). Detecting deception: The benefit of looking at a combination of behavioral, auditory and speech content related cues in a systematic manner. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1), 61–79. DOI: 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011946.74290.bc
    Back to article
  76. 76Vrij, A., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(1), 65–80. DOI: 10.1007/BF02248715
    Back to article
  77. 77Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1991). Cultural patterns in dutch and surinam nonverbal behavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(3), 169–184. DOI: 10.1007/BF01672219
    Back to article
  78. 78Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Farrell, S. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 192–196. DOI: 10.3758/BF03206482
    Back to article
  79. 79White, S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language in Society, 18(1), 59–76. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500013270
    Back to article
  80. 80Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). Elan: A professional framework for multimodality research. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Genoa.
    Back to article
  81. 81Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1–59. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X
    Back to article
  82. 82Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In: Siegman, A. W., & Feldstein, S. (eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior, 129–147. Psychology Press.
    Back to article
  83. 83Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Driver, R. (1981). Beliefs about cues associated with deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6(1), 105–114. DOI: 10.1007/BF00987286
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.46 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Jun 6, 2018
Accepted on: Sep 7, 2018
Published on: Sep 27, 2018
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Deception,
Communication,
Pragmatics,
Disfluency

© 2018 Jia E. Loy, Hannah Rohde, Martin Corley, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 1 (2017): Issue 1Next article