Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives

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

Abstract

Previous research shows that observers are hardly able to detect deception above the level of chance. The literature reveals several suggestions on how to improve the detection of deception. In this experiment the impact of four suggestions was tested. According to two suggestions the accuracy rate will improve if observers are provided with relevant information, such as (1) information about indicators of deception, or (2) outcome feedback. The two other suggestions emphasize that detecting deception is easier under certain circumstances than under others, that is, (3) spontaneous interviews are more detectable than planned interviews, and (4) the presence of comparison with a baseline facilitates the detection of deception. In the present experiment 360 police detectives assessed subjects' veracity on the basis of short videotaped interviews. Detectives watched the clips in one of 12 conditions formed by the crossing of four levels of setting (one spontaneous interview/one planned interview/two interviews-total image/two interviews-hands only) with three levels of information (no information/information about objective indicators of deception/information about objective indicators of deception plus feedback). Results revealed that information improved detection of deception, but only in the planned interview condition and the two interviews-hands only condition.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Burgoon, J. K., Kelly, D. L., Newton, D. A., & Keeley-Dyreson, M. P. (1989). The nature of arousal and nonverbal indices.Human Communication Research, 16, 217–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & LePoire, B. A. (1992). A reply from the heart: Who are Sparks and Greene and why are they saying all these horrible things?Human Communication Research, 18, 472–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., LePoire, B. A., Beutler, L. E., Bergan, J., & Engle, D. (1992). Nonverbal behaviors as indices of arousal: Extension to the psychotherapy context.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 159–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation.Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Blank, A. L., Swaim, G. W., & Hairfield, J. G. (1992). Expressiveness and expressive control.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 276–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.),Credibility assessment (pp. 51–71). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lassiter, G. D., & Stone, J. L. (1982). Attentional determinants of success at detecting deception and truth.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 273–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, 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., Stone, J. L., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B. R. Schenkler (Ed.),The self and social life (pp. 323–370). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • deTurck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1985). Deception and arousal: Isolating the behavioral correlates of deception.Human Communication Research, 12, 181–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • deTurck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1990). Training observers to detect deception: Effects of self-monitoring and rehearsal.Human Communication Research, 16, 603–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1988). Lying and nonverbal behavior: Theoretical issues and new findings.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1989). Why lies fail and what behaviors betray a lie. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.),Credibility assessment (pp. 71–83). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    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 

  • Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct.Human Communication Research, 1, 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhnken, C. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does it work?Social Behaviour, 2, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhnken, G. (1989). Behavioral correlates of statement credibility: Theories, paradigms and results. In H. Wegener, F. Löset, & J. Haisch (Eds.),Criminal behavior and the justice system: Psychological perspectives (pp. 271–289). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 380–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts.Journal of Communication, 30, 209–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E., & Poe, D. (1980). On the line: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 380–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1992). Linking love and lies: a formal test of the McCornack and Parks model of detection deception.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlepage, G. E., & Pineault, M. A. (1985). Detection of deception of planned and spontaneous communications.Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 195–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, C. C., & Hunt, R. G. (1975). Nonverbal indicators of affect and deception in an interview setting.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monti, P.M., Boice, R., Fingeret, A.L., Zwick, W.R., Koloko, D., Munroe, S., & Grungerger, A. (1984). Mid-level measurement of social anxiety in psychiatric and non-psychiatric samples.Behavioral Research Therapy, 22, 651–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 203–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1983). Impression formation: The role of expressive behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 649–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, R. E., Tucker, J., & Throckmorton, B. (1988). Social skills and deception ability.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 568–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, K. R. (1986). Vocal affect expression: A review and a model for future research.Psychological Bulletin, 99, 143–165.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (1991).Misverstanden tussen politie en allochtonen: sociaal-psychologische aspecten van verdacht zijn. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (1992). Het maken van een verdachte indruk op rechercheurs: De invloed van stereotiepen, sociale vaardigheden, verbaal-en non-verbaal gedrag op de oordeelsvorming.Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 34, 129–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (1993). Objectieve indicatoren van misleiding in een gesimuleerd politie-verhoor.Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 48, 110–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1990). Sociale vaardigheden, perceptuele vertekeningen en “verdachte” zijn: Studies rond het maken van een verdachte indruk en het vermogen te misleiden.Proces, 69, 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, 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, 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1992). Crosscultural police-citizen interactions: The influence of race, beliefs and nonverbal communication on impression formation.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1546–1559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1993). Perceptual distortions in crosscultural interrogations: The impact of skin color, accent, speech style and spoken fluency on impression formation.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, in press.

  • Zuckerman, M., DeFrank, R. S., Hall, J. A., Larrance, D. T., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Facial and vocal cues of deception and honesty.Journal of Experimental Social Pychology, 15, 378–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 2–59). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.),Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 129–147). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Alton, A. O. (1984). Learning to detect deception.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 519–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., Colella, M. J. (1985). Learning to detect deception from three communication channels.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 188–194.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, King Charles Street, PO1 2ER, Portsmouth, UK

    Aldert Vrij

Authors
  1. Aldert Vrij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This study was supported by a grant from the Recherche Advies Commissie (RAC) of the Ministry of Justice.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vrij, A. The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives. J Nonverbal Behav 18, 117–136 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02170074

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02170074

Keywords

Search

Navigation