Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Decoding deception: A look at the process

  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Buck, R. (1984).The communication of emotion. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M., Lanier, K. & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 1096–1103.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M. & Pfeiffer, R.L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16 249–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M. & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling Lies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 1713–1722.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M., Rosenthal, R., Green, C.R., & Rosenkrantz, J. (1982). Diagnosing deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and nonverbal cues.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18 433–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M., Rosenthal, R., Rosenkrantz, J. & Green, C.R. (1982). Actual and perceived cues to deception: A closer look at speech.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3 291–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M., Stone, J.I., & Lassiter, G.D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B.R. Schlenker (Ed.)The Self and Social Life. (pp. 323–370) New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. & Friesen, W.V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.Psychiatry, 32 88–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. & Friesen, W.V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 288–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, R.S. (1976). Nonverbal disclosure of teacher deception and interpersonal affect.Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 807–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, H.S. (1968). Magnitude of experimental effect and a table for its rapid estimation.Psychological Bulletin, 70 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J.A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues.Psychological Bulletin, 85 845–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J.A. (1979). Gender, gender roles and nonverbal skills. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.)Skill in nonverbal communication: Individual differences. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J.A. (1984).Nonverbal sex differences. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirouac, G. & Dore, F.Y. (1983). Accuracy and latency of judgment of facial expressions of emotions.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57 683–686.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S. & Fischoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20 159–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNemar, Q. (1962).Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noller, P. (1986). Sex differences in nonverbal communication: Advantage lost or supremacy regained?Australian Journal of Psychology, 38 1, 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29 261–265.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. & DePaulo, B.M. (1979a). Sex differences in accommodation in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.),Skill in nonverbal communication: Individual differences. (pp. 68–103). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. & DePaulo, B.M. (1979 b). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 273–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, H.E. & Rakos, R.F. (1983). The identification and assessment of social skills. In R. Ellis & D. Whittington (Eds.)New directions in social skill training. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toris, C. & DePaulo, B.M. (1985). Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 1063–1073.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hurd, K., Noller, P. Decoding deception: A look at the process. J Nonverbal Behav 12, 217–233 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987489

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987489

Keywords