Abstract
For a study of modality differences in deception detection accuracy, groups of graduate students judged segments selected from videotapes of criminal confessions. Twenty brief utterances were presented in four ways: content only transcript, verbatim transcript, audio only, and audio/videotape. No modality difference in unbiased truth hit rate was found, but unbiased lie hit rate varied by modality, with judges of transcripts stripped of pause indications, word repeats, and umms and uhhs less accurate than verbatim transcript judges, audio judges, and audio/video judges. The 62% overall accuracy and 61% lie detection accuracy of audio judges was highest and, in contrast to other judges, audio judgments did not display a response bias. The results remain consistent with the presence of valid visual cues but suggest that at least in some situations focus on valid vocal cues may offer more accuracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These clips were drawn from statements given to Assistant District Attorneys after suspects were interrogated and had admitted involvement in murders, assaults, and other serious felonies. Strict rules for protection of the identity of the subjects and viewing of the tapes have been followed.
A psychologist went over the transcript line by line with an investigator from the case comparing crime scene or physical evidence and witness testimony with explicit, unambiguous statements about events or actions to identify which were corroborated true and which false based on the evidence (and not investigator hunch). For a discussion of evidence that the false answers were intentional lies, see Davis et al. (2000) and Davis et al. (2005).
References
Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., Ansfield, M. E., Tickle, J. J., & Green, E. (1999). Beliefs about cues to deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 67–89.
Anolli, L., & Ciceri, R. (1997). The voice of deception: Vocal strategies of naïve and able liars. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 259–284.
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (in preparation). Accuracy of deception judgments.
Bond, C. F., & Rao, S. R. (2004). Lies travel: Mendacity in a mobile world. In P. A. Granhag, & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 127–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christenfeld, N. (1995). Does it hurt to say um? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 171–186.
Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, M., Markus, K. A., Walters, S. B., Vorus, N., & Connors, B. (2005). Behavioral cues to deception vs. topic incriminating potential in criminal confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 683–704.
Davis, M., Walters, S. B., Vorus, N., Meiland, P. A., & Markus, K. A. (2000). Verbal and nonverbal cues to false testimony in criminal investigations. Presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Washington, DC.
DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346–357.
DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1096–1103.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2004). Discerning lies from truths: Behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In P. A. Granhag, & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill in detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249–267.
DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Deceiving and detection deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323–370). New York: McGraw-Hill.
DePaulo B. M., Zuckerman M., & Rosenthal R. (1980). Detecting deception: Modality effects. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 125–162). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 288–298.
Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266.
Fiedler, K., & Walka, I. (1993). Training lie detectors to use nonverbal cues instead of global heuristics. Human Communication Research, 20, 199–223.
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stakes lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1429–1439.
Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2004). Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 254–275.
Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Deception detection. In N. Brewer, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 43–92). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kassin, S. M. (2004). True or false: “I’d know a false confession if I saw one.” In P. A. Granhag, & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 172–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I’m innocent!”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499–516.
Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 211–227.
Kohnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and the detection of the truth. In P. A. Granhag, & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 41–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kraut, R. E., & Poe, D. (1980). Behavioral roots of person perception: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 784–798.
Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Weiland, P. E., & Munhall, P. J. (2002). Videotaped interrogations and confessions: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 867–874.
Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the ‘veracity effect’. Communication Monographs, 66, 125–144.
Maier, R. F., & Thurber, J. A. (1968). Accuracy of judgments of deception when an interview is watched, heard, and read. Personnel Psychology, 21, 23–30.
Malone, B. E., & DePaulo, B. M. (2001). Measuring sensitivity to deception. In J. A. Hall, & F. J. Bernieri (Eds), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.
Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (1997). The effects of cognitive capacity and suspicion on truth bias. Communication Research, 24, 556–570.
Olkin, I., & Finn, J. D. (1995). Correlations redux. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 155–164.
O’Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 203–215.
O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In P. A. Granhag, & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 269–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144–157.
Porter, S., Woodworth, M., & Birt, A. (2000). Truth, lies and videotape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643–58.
Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443–458.
Ruback, R. B., & Hopper, C. H. (1986). Decision making by parole interviewers: The effect of case and interview factors. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 203–214.
Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. London: Sage Publications.
Steblay, J., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–473.
Stiff, J. B., Kim, H. J., & Ramesh, C. N. (1992). Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception. Communication Research, 19, 326–345.
Stiff, J. B., Miller, G. R., Sleight, C., Mongeau, P., Garlick, R., & Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 555–564.
Stromwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9, 19–36.
Vrij, A. (1993). Credibility judgments of detectives: The impact of nonverbal behavior, social skills, and physical characteristics on impression formation. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 601–610.
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239–263.
Vrij, A., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 65–80.
Wagner, H. L. (1993). On measuring performance in category judgments studies of nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 3–28.
Walters, S. B. (1996). Principles of kinesic interview and interrogation. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Zuckerman, M., Amidon, M. D., Bishop, S. E., & Pomerantz, S. D. (1982). Face and tone of voice in the communication of deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 347–357.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The confession tapes study originated with a U.S. Government-sponsored project on the Analytic Potentials of Nonverbal Communication directed by Brenda Connors. Continuing support for our research has come from a John Jay College of Criminal Justice Presidential Research Grant and special thanks go to Drs. Jack Zlotnick and Daniel P. Juda. We are indebted to the District Attorney executives who permitted study of the videotapes and Detective (ret.) Raymond Pierce who has consulted with us throughout. We are most grateful to our research assistants and the John Jay graduate students who worked on the pilot and volunteered to complete the protocol of the judgment study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davis, M., Markus, K. & Walters, S. Judging the Credibility of Criminal Suspect Statements: Does Mode of Presentation Matter?. J Nonverbal Behav 30, 181–198 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-006-0016-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-006-0016-0