Deception Clue: A Review of the Literature
Deception is a pervasive phenomenon in human social life. It has been studied extensively in many contexts, such as strategic communication, negotiation, and persuasion. Recently, there has been a surge of interest in the concept of deception clues (DCs). DCs are defined as implicit cues that can be used to detect deception, either consciously or unconsciously, by the perceiver. This review explores the literature on DCs, with a focus on the theoretical models, empirical findings, and practical implications of the research.
Theoretical Models
There are several theoretical models that have been proposed to explain the use of DCs in deception detection. The first is the “cognitive model” (Vrij & Mann, 2001). This model proposes that deceptive behaviors are effortful and require increased cognitive resources to execute. As a result, the deceiver may display subtle clues that indicate that they are under cognitive strain. Common DCs associated with this model include speech errors, pauses, and inconsistencies.
The second model is the “behavioral model” (Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991). This model proposes that deceivers often display behavior that is incongruent with their message. Common DCs associated with this model include body language, facial expressions, and gesture.
The third model is the “emotional model” (Ekman, O’Sullivan, & Frank, 1999). This model proposes that deceivers often experience negative emotions such as anxiety, guilt, and shame. As a result, the deceiver may display subtle emotional cues that indicate they are under emotional strain. Common DCs associated with this model include facial expressions, posture, and vocal tone.
Empirical Findings
A number of empirical studies have investigated the effectiveness of DCs in detecting deception. Overall, the research suggests that DCs can be useful in detecting deception, but the evidence is mixed.
For example, several studies have found that DCs are more effective than chance in detecting deception (Vrij & Mann, 2001; Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991; Ekman, O’Sullivan, & Frank, 1999). However, other studies have found that DCs are less accurate than other cues (e.g., verbal cues and nonverbal cues) in detecting deception (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Vrij & Mann, 2001).
In addition, some studies have found that certain types of DCs are more effective than others. For example, Bond and DePaulo (2006) found that verbal cues (e.g., speech errors, pauses, and inconsistencies) were more effective than nonverbal cues (e.g., facial expressions and body language) in detecting deception.
Practical Implications
The research on DCs has important implications for practitioners. First, the research suggests that DCs can be effective in detecting deception, but only when used in combination with other cues. Second, the research suggests that certain types of DCs (e.g., verbal cues) may be more effective than others (e.g., nonverbal cues). Finally, the research suggests that practitioners should be aware of their own biases when interpreting DCs and should strive to be as objective as possible.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this review has explored the literature on DCs. The research suggests that DCs can be useful in detecting deception, but the evidence is mixed. Furthermore, certain types of DCs (e.g., verbal cues) may be more effective than others (e.g., nonverbal cues). Finally, the research has important implications for practitioners, who should be aware of their own biases when interpreting DCs and strive to be as objective as possible.
References
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214-234.
Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10(3), 263-266.
Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913-920.
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Detecting deception by analyzing speech. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(3), 239-263.