Nonverbal indicators of Affect and Deception in an Interview Setting¹

Abstract

A study was conducted to identify codes of nonverbal behavior which could be used by interviewers in a standard field interview t o systematically assess deception and emotional states of respondents. Ten male and 10 female subjects were interviewed on topics that had been pretested to arouse in them pleasant involvement, passivity, and unpleasant involvement. Subjects were also instructed to lie to the interviewer on issues of importance to them. Eye contact was measured by observation through a one-way mirror. Smiles, gestures, self-manipulations and postural shifts were scored from videotapes of the interview. The most distinctive patterns of nonverbal cues occurred with unpleasant-involvement and deception questions. The former state was characterized by increases in smiling, self-manipulations, and postural shifts. Deception responses were marked by decreases in smiling and increases in self-manipulations and postural shifts. Results also suggested that eye contact functioned as an intensifier of affect.

Towards an empirical model of malingering and deception

“…With respect to facial expressions there is conflicting evidence as to whether those attempting to be deliberately deceitful utilize increased smiling (Mehravian & Williams, 1969) or decreased smiling. McClintock and Hunt (1975) found that individuals in a carefully controlled experimental design smiled only approximately four percent of the time as opposed to an average of eight percent of the time when responding to questions accurately. It has also supported other research findings of increased body movements and postural shifts in those attempting to deceive.…”

The detection of malingered mental illness

“…Thus, the face is especially well-equipped to tell lies, and provides the least reliable cues for someone trying to detect deception (Ekman & Frieson, 1974). McClintock and Hunt (1975) noted that experimental subjects reported tension and discomfort when they were lying. They were successful in controlling facial expressions, but were unable to eliminate evidence of tension in the lower body.…”

Disinformation usage in corporate communications: CI'ers beware

“…Burns & Kintz, 1976Kraut, 1978Littlepage & Pineault, 1978DePaulo and Rosenthal, 1979 Bluffing Carr, 1968 Deception Detection Gustafson and Orne, 1964;1965Maier and Thurber, 1968Thackery and Orne, 1968Ekman and Friesen, 1969Geis and Leventhal, 1970Knapp et al, 1974McClintock and Hunt, 1975Ekman et al, 1976Geizer et al, 1977Streeter et al, 1977Elliot, 1979Hocking et al, 1979Knapp & Comadena, 1979Littlepage & Pineault, 1978Zuckerman et al, 1979Fugita et al, 1980Riggio & Friedman, 1983DePaulo et al, 1985 Closed Influence Tactics and Ingratiation Kleinke et al, 1972Frankel & Morris, 1976 Unethical Behavior Exline et al, 1970Dubinsky et al, 1980 Ulterior Motivation Fein et al, 1990 Influence Use Spiro & Perreault, 1979 …”