Lying to Ourselves: A Case Study in Nonverbal Cues and Deception Detection Expertise

Author(s):

Edition: 1

Copyright: 2021

Pages: 10

Choose Your Format

Choose Your Platform | Help Me Choose

Ebook

$5.00

ISBN 9798765701461

Details Electronic Delivery EBOOK 180 days

Abstract

Deception occurs in many different forms and is often difficult to detect. Even well-known detection tools such as truth serums and lie detector tests are, at best, unreliable. Deception has been defined by Vrij (2000) as “a successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt,without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator believes is false” (p. 15). Although using nonverbal cues and behaviors to detect deception has proven difficult, it often feels intuitive that a universal cue for nonverbal deception should exist. Once —Mohemmad Hansia University of California, Santa Barbara, United States of America —Christopher Otmar University of California, Santa Barbara, United States of America —Norah Dunbar University of California, Santa Barbara, United States of America Contributed by Mohemmad Hansia, Christopher Otmar and Norah Dunbar © Kendall Hunt Publishing Co. Lying to Ourselves A Case Study in Nonverbal Cues and Deception Detection Expertise fully uncovered and understood, nonverbal cue(s) could be the key to detecting deception at a very high percentage. However, there are limits on the utility of nonverbal cues to detect deception (Levine, 2018). The notion that certain nonverbal behaviors or cues will surface while lying has persisted for centuries. Nonverbal cues such as shivers, knee jerks, and eye movements were often associated with lying as early as 900BC, well before any empirical research was conducted on deception (Trovillo, 1939). This intuitive belief has led to decades of research focused on finding the “Pinocchio’s nose” and has resulted in little success (Vrij,2000). This chapter will first begin with a review of empirical research conducted on the effectiveness of nonverbal cues in detecting deception, followed by a case study highlighting a nonverbal deception “expert.” The chapter concludes with a discussion of the practical implications of nonverbal research in deception detection.

Abstract

Deception occurs in many different forms and is often difficult to detect. Even well-known detection tools such as truth serums and lie detector tests are, at best, unreliable. Deception has been defined by Vrij (2000) as “a successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt,without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator believes is false” (p. 15). Although using nonverbal cues and behaviors to detect deception has proven difficult, it often feels intuitive that a universal cue for nonverbal deception should exist. Once —Mohemmad Hansia University of California, Santa Barbara, United States of America —Christopher Otmar University of California, Santa Barbara, United States of America —Norah Dunbar University of California, Santa Barbara, United States of America Contributed by Mohemmad Hansia, Christopher Otmar and Norah Dunbar © Kendall Hunt Publishing Co. Lying to Ourselves A Case Study in Nonverbal Cues and Deception Detection Expertise fully uncovered and understood, nonverbal cue(s) could be the key to detecting deception at a very high percentage. However, there are limits on the utility of nonverbal cues to detect deception (Levine, 2018). The notion that certain nonverbal behaviors or cues will surface while lying has persisted for centuries. Nonverbal cues such as shivers, knee jerks, and eye movements were often associated with lying as early as 900BC, well before any empirical research was conducted on deception (Trovillo, 1939). This intuitive belief has led to decades of research focused on finding the “Pinocchio’s nose” and has resulted in little success (Vrij,2000). This chapter will first begin with a review of empirical research conducted on the effectiveness of nonverbal cues in detecting deception, followed by a case study highlighting a nonverbal deception “expert.” The chapter concludes with a discussion of the practical implications of nonverbal research in deception detection.