Cues to Deception in an Interview Situation

Towards an empirical model of malingering and deception

“…No attempts were made to employ these paralinguistic indicators with a clinical population. Further, Harrison, Hwalek, Raney, & Fritz (1978) studied 72 pairs of subjects, where one of the two was designated as an interviewer and the other as a respondent, and found that when the respondents were deceptive their answers had an increased latency period and/or were hesitant and lengthy. This Empirical Model /cont increased latency period affirmed earlier findings that such hesitations could be used by the interviewers as evidence of deceit (Baskett & Freedle, 1974).…”

The detection of malingered mental illness

“…Research with students instructed to lie, compared with those instructed to tell the truth, showed that hesitation or pause is associated with deceit; lying answers were also longer than truthful answers (Harrison et al, 1978). Unpremeditated lies are more easily detected than planned lies (DePaulo et al, 1980).…”

Effects of contextual expectancies on deception-detection

“…For example, some of the cues reported to be correlated to deception-recognition are the decrease of gaze (Hemsley & Doob, 1978;Kraut & Poe, 1980) or smiling (Friedman, 1979;Kraut & Poe, 1980;Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall, Larrance, & Rosenthal, 1979), and the increase of response latency (Harrison, Hwalek, Raney, & Fritz, 1978;Kraut, 1978;Kraut & Poe, 1980) or postual shifts (Kraut, 1978;Kraut & Poe, 1980). The interpretation stage, however, has not become a subject of discussion since Kraut (1978).…”