Truth-default theory

Last updated

Truth-default theory (TDT) is a communication theory which predicts and explains the use of veracity and deception detection in humans. It was developed upon the discovery of the veracity effect - whereby the proportion of truths versus lies presented in a judgement study on deception will drive accuracy rates. This theory gets its name from its central idea which is the truth-default state. This idea suggests that people presume others to be honest because they either don't think of deception as a possibility during communicating or because there is insufficient evidence that they are being deceived. [1] Emotions, arousal, strategic self-presentation, and cognitive effort are nonverbal behaviors that one might find in deception detection. [1] Ultimately this theory predicts that speakers and listeners will default to use the truth to achieve their communicative goals. However, if the truth presents a problem, then deception will surface as a viable option for goal attainment.

Contents

Background

As an alternative view of deception and detection, truth-default theory was introduced by Timothy R. Levine. Levine is a Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at University of Alabama Birmingham. While experimenting with deception detection, Levine found that, even in high suspicion situations, truth-bias still occurred. At first, truth-bias was thought of as flawed cognitive processing but later found to be functional and adaptive. After enough focus on truth-bias, truth-default theory began to take shape. [2]

Deception

Knowing that you are intentionally misleading a person when communicating with them is considered deception. [3] Deception in most cases is looked at as a negative thing that often leads to feeling of betrayal and distrust. There are several different types of deception such as lies, equivocations, concealments, exaggerations, and understatements. There are many reasons why people choose to use deception. Based on interpersonal deception theory, people often use deception to avoid punishment, maintain relationships, and preserve self image. [4]

Deception motives

Deception motives refer to the theory that the majority of individuals only lie when they deem it unavoidable. People communicate honestly or choose to deceive with the same intention to achieve one goal, and when the truth allows that goal to be reached, people will not lie. It is only when the truth serves as an obstacle to their goal that people choose to deceive instead of using honest communication. [5] Also, when deceivers try to save their self image and want to avoid hurting the other person, they use falsification tactics. Males tend to view deception more acceptable than females, therefore they tend to deceive more. Another study shows that women are more likely to deceive to protect their partner's self image, while men are more likely to deceive to protect themselves. [6] For example, if a women's partner were to get a new haircut that she did not like she is more prone to lie and say she likes it to protect their self-image. A man might tell others that they make more money than they actually do in order to raise their self-image. [1] Being able to successfully detect deception does not come easily to most, and that is why so many people are just automatically truth-biased. Studies have shown that people who are successful at detecting deception either receive a confession by the deceiver or has some preexisting knowledge of the situation. [1]

Truth bias

Truth bias is people's inclination towards believing, to some degree, the communication of another person, regardless of whether or not that person is actually lying or being untruthful. [7] [3] It is human nature to believe communication is honest, which in turn makes humans highly vulnerable to deception. [3] Consequently, a person's ability to detect deception is weakened, particularly when the source of deception is unfamiliar. As long as a person already has the perception that everything they are told is true, they are still considered to be truth-biased. [8]

The term "truth bias" was first coined in 1984 by deception researcher Steven McCornack and his mentor Malcolm "Mac" Parks, while conducting an experiment that led to them to posit the McCornack-Parks Model of Deception Detection. [9] On page 24 of Zuckerman, DePaulo, and Rosenthal's meta-analysis, the authors described having observed a "truthfulness bias" in which detectors under certain conditions were more likely to perceive truthfulness in sources. [10] Parks and McCornack had observed the same pattern amongst dating partners, and so they shortened the name to "truth bias," and added it to their causal model. In subsequent works, McCornack and fellow deception scholar Timothy Levine broadened its inclusiveness to enfold a general tendency toward judging the communication of others as truthful. [8] An example of truth bias is if a person were given a series of truths and lies, generally, the accuracy with which they detect truths would likely be above 50%, and the accuracy with which they detect lies would likely be below 50%. [11] The results of deception research conducted by Timothy Levine illustrates that this is due in part to the "truth-lie base-rate," which is a part of the "Park-Levine Probability Model." [3]

The theory states that there are two reasons an individual will assume the communication is honest:

  1. Failure of the individual to "actively consider the possibility of deceit at all." [3]
  2. The default human state the individual goes to because they cannot find evidence of being lied to.

This is the central premise to the truth-default theory. Unless an individual finds active evidence to believe they are being deceived, the individual will take the communication as honest. This concept is also referred to as The Projective Motive Model, or the idea that individuals are less vulnerable to deception when they are already suspicious of the communication. [3]

Individuals' detection of deception also relies on the person's ability to pick up on verbal and non-verbal cues. Generally, non-verbal communication is more difficult for an individual to disguise than untruthful statements. [12] Nonverbal manipulation of one's truth bias depends on a person's physical presence and ability to "sell" untruthful communication.

The veracity effect

The veracity effect is the tendency for people's accuracy in judging truth to be significantly higher than it is for judging lies. [11] Accuracy in communication can be based on whether the message is honest or not. Messages that are honest tend to have higher accuracy than messages that are not honest. If a message is true, there is a better chance an individual would be able to accurately detect that it is true and not a lie. [3] According to Timothy Levine, veracity effect came from truth-bias in observers. [13] Veracity (or honesty) is the truthfulness of a statement. Veracity can be influenced by weird behavior or norm violations. Behaviors that go against the social norm of truth telling such as teeth grinding, averting eye contact, and abnormally stretching, create the perception of deception. [14] Tim Levine refers to these behaviors as creating a "negative halo effect". Other factors that may influence a person's accuracy of deception detection include the falsifiability and infrequency of reported events. Truth bias plays a role and is rooted in the veracity effect, as well as truth default, which goes hand in hand with its results. [3]

As humans, we are not very accurate when detecting lies from the truth. It is thought that we are approximately only fifty to sixty percent capable of detecting deception. [15] With these odds, we hardly have the upper hand on a game of chance at telling whether or not to trust what we are being told. There are several reasons behind why we are incapable of detecting deception, one of the most significant being the fact that not all people show the same tell tale signs when they are lying. It is commonly thought that avoiding eye contact, inability to sit still, nervousness in the voice, etc. are accurate ways to tell that someone is lying. However, someone who is being truthful might partake in these "suspicious" behaviors simply as part of their personal mannerisms. On the other hand, someone who is being deceitful may not show signs of deception at all, thus creating a gap in the capability of humans to detect deceptions. [15]

The probing effect

The probing effect is when a person that is questioned gives minimal answers truthfully rather than answering accurately. The interviewer is more likely to believe the interviewee when they know he or she is being honest rather than providing an identical answer. [16] Questioning of a source makes it more likely that they are believable, and this increases the receivers truth-bias. With research, they find that the increase in truth bias and not on the grounds of seeing the little to no impact on the accuracy of the questioning. [8] Although the probing effect can be controversial when it comes to explaining just why it happens, researchers attempt to explain through the sender behavioral adaptation (the BAE, Behavioral Adaptation Explanation). BAE states that interviewees will adapt in order to appear as "honest." [17] It was found that the probing effect was held when the senders behavior was controlled and the explanation was resided in receiver cognition. [8]

Critiques

If the probability of predicting deception was truly 50%, then with repeated trials, the influences of both truth bias and the veracity effect would be negated and eventually the accuracy of detection would become an even 50%. There has been some academic research to support this idea, with truth bias decreasing over time while overall accuracy increased. [13]

There are also different perspectives on how people make a decision of whether someone is lying or telling the truth. The Adaptive Lie Detector account (ALIED) [18] argues that people do not default to believe information is true. Instead, people examine the clues that are available about the current statement being assessed (called 'individuating cues') and information that generalises across statements in this context (called 'context-general information'). When individuating cues are highly diagnostic (e.g., Pinocchio's nose is a perfect predictor of his deception), ALIED claims that people rely on this information heavily to make their decision, but when these individuating cues are unreliable (e.g., the speaker avoids eye contact, which is not a reliable clue to deception [19] ), information about statements in general weighs more heavily into forming the decision. Because people tend to tell the truth more often than they lie (e.g., [20] ) and because individuating cues are typically not diagnostic, [19] ALIED argues that this is why people are biased to believe others show the truth bias: it is not a default of honesty (as TDT would claim), but an adaptive and functional decision that reflects the best understanding one can obtain when the cues in the environment are not very diagnostic. ALIED is able to explain why in certain circumstances, such as when people are trained to spot lies or operate in environments where deception is common, people are biased to judge others as lying (a "lie bias", e.g. [21] [22] [23] )

Sender honest demeanor

Sender demeanor refers to the believability in a message and how people will believe this idea. It has been stated to be the most influential source of variation in deception detection. Demeanor refers to the behavior displayed by one person to express desirable or undesirable qualities. When considering the demeanor of an approachable or well liked person, socialization or character training comes to mind for people who are defined as well-demeaned. [24]

Truth-default theory vs. Information manipulation theory

Truth Default Theory (TDT) is the analysis of human communication as it is received as an incoming message. This is not to be confused with Information Manipulation Theory (IMT) which analyzes the use of truth from the sender, seeking to understand how natural "truth telling" is. While TDT implies that humans have a truth bias when sending information, IMT addresses in detail the perspective of the sender. IMT declares that in order for humans to rely on defective communication it must be efficient otherwise honest communication is preferred by the sender. Therefore, IMT declares that truth telling is not the automatic/default form of communication despite our beliefs of human communication; furthermore declaring that lying may be a natural response if it warrants efficiency. Motivation might be explained why these two theories diverge both in theory and lines of research. The hypothesis that arose from these two theories is that lying may come naturally, or more naturally than truth telling. Lying might be an automatic response. Some of the reasons that lying might be an automatic response can be referenced to why people choose to use deception, for example maintaining a self image. When people are communicating they usually have a core belief that what the other person is saying is truthful. A lot of Supposed which supports TDT is data showing most people report to usually tell the truth and the tendency for people to believe that communication is usually more truthful than deceptive. IMT has more to do with humans wanting to maximize efficiency in communication.

Cognitive psychology

Researchers have looked into individuals’ cognitive effort when choosing between a lie or the truth. Lying has been proven to be more difficult for the brain to process than telling the truth, they have found that lying increases activity in various brain regions. It takes the brain longer to formulate a deceptive answer than it does a truthful answer when a person is asked to answer questions at a faster speed. Overall, the truth is the first thing that comes to mind for a person in most situations. A humans mind is flexible enough to adapt in certain situations when needing to be deceptive, there are just certain variable and time restraints that arise from it. [25]

Social psychology

Social Psychology has explored whether the tendency to tell the truth prevails. When a lie serves a person's self-interest they might be more prone to lying because it ends in a positive result for them. As noted before, self-interest has been found to be the driving force for people to practice deception. People are most prone to lie after engaging in a depleting task, when they are sleep deprived, and later in the day compared to when they first wake up. [25]

The power of motivation

Both IMC2 and TDT have shown that motivation could be the driving force between people's responses to either lie or tell the truth. Whether it is being entrusted to lie or given the opportunity to lie, most findings show is a trend in how the lie serves self-interest. TDT has shown that lying is a default option if it in some way serves in self-interest of a person. IMC2 supports that one is consistent with lying when they have something to gain or not lose from lying or telling the truth. [25]

Modules

Timothy R. Levine, a Communication studies scholar at the University of Alabama at Birmingham states that several effects, models, and mini-theories comprise the truth-default theory. The logical structure can be reflected in 12 different propositions and contains 13 modules, effects, and mini-theories. Each of these modules are independent ideas which contribute to the truth-default theory as a whole. These are the Few Prolific Liars Model, the Deception Motives Module, the Projected Motive Model, the Veracity Effect, the Park–Levine Probability Model, the A Few Transparent Liars, the Sender Honest Demeanor module, and the How People Really Detect Lies module. [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polygraph</span> Device that attempts to infer lying

A polygraph, often incorrectly referred to as a lie detector test, is a junk science device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions. The belief underpinning the use of the polygraph is that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated from those associated with non-deceptive answers; however, there are no specific physiological reactions associated with lying, making it difficult to identify factors that separate those who are lying from those who are telling the truth.

Deception is an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true. This occurs when a deceiver uses information against a person to make them believe an idea is true. Deception can be used with both verbal and nonverbal messages. The person creating the deception knows it to be false while the receiver of the message has a tendency to believe it. It is often done for personal gain or advantage. Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda and sleight of hand as well as distraction, camouflage or concealment. There is also self-deception, as in bad faith. It can also be called, with varying subjective implications, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification, ruse, or subterfuge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lie</span> Intentionally false statement made to deceive

A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone. The practice of communicating lies is called lying. A person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar. Lies can be interpreted as deliberately false statements or misleading statements, though not all statements that are literally false are considered lies – metaphors, hyperboles, and other figurative rhetoric are not intended to mislead, while lies are explicitly meant for literal interpretation by their audience. Lies may also serve a variety of instrumental, interpersonal, or psychological functions for the individuals who use them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Honesty</span> Moral quality of truthfulness

Honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.

Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Microexpression</span> Innate result of voluntary, involuntary, and conflicting emotional responses

A microexpression is a facial expression that only lasts for a short moment. It is the innate result of a voluntary and an involuntary emotional response occurring simultaneously and conflicting with one another, and occurs when the amygdala responds appropriately to the stimuli that the individual experiences and the individual wishes to conceal this specific emotion. This results in the individual very briefly displaying their true emotions followed by a false emotional reaction.

Lie detection is an assessment of a verbal statement with the goal to reveal a possible intentional deceit. Lie detection may refer to a cognitive process of detecting deception by evaluating message content as well as non-verbal cues. It also may refer to questioning techniques used along with technology that record physiological functions to ascertain truth and falsehood in response. The latter is commonly used by law enforcement in the United States, but rarely in other countries because it is based on pseudoscience.

Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) is one of a number of theories that attempts to explain how individuals handle actual deception at the conscious or subconscious level while engaged in face-to-face communication. The theory was put forth by David Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996 to explore this idea that deception is an engaging process between receiver and deceiver. IDT assumes that communication is not static; it is influenced by personal goals and the meaning of the interaction as it unfolds. IDT is no different from other forms of communication since all forms of communication are adaptive in nature. The sender's overt communications are affected by the overt and covert communications of the receiver, and vice versa. IDT explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges.

Information Manipulation Theory (IMT) & is a theory of deceptive discourse production, rooted in H. Paul Grice's theory of conversational implicature. IMT argues that, rather than communicators producing "truths" and "lies," the vast majority of everyday deceptive discourse involves complicated combinations of elements that fall somewhere in between these polar opposites; with the most common form of deception being the editing-out of contextually problematic information. More specifically, individuals have available to them four different ways of misleading others: playing with the amount of relevant information that is shared, including false information, presenting irrelevant information, and/or presenting information in an overly vague fashion. As long as such manipulations remain covert - that is, undetected by recipients - deception will succeed. Two of the most important practical implications of IMT are that deceivers commonly use messages that are composed entirely of truthful information to deceive; and that because this is the case, our ability to detect deception in real-world environments is extremely limited.

The Wizards Project was a research project at the University of California, San Francisco led by Paul Ekman and Maureen O'Sullivan that studied the ability of people to detect lies. The experts identified in their study were called "Truth Wizards". O'Sullivan spent more than 20 years studying the science of lying and deceit. The project was originally named the Diogenes Project, after Diogenes of Sinope, the Greek philosopher who would look into people's faces using a lamp, claiming to be looking for an honest man.

Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit or explicit relational rules. These transgressions include a wide variety of behaviors. The boundaries of relational transgressions are permeable. Betrayal for example, is often used as a synonym for a relational transgression. In some instances, betrayal can be defined as a rule violation that is traumatic to a relationship, and in other instances as destructive conflict or reference to infidelity.

Non-verbal leakage is a form of non-verbal behavior that occurs when a person verbalizes one thing, but their body language indicates another, common forms of which include facial movements and hand-to-face gestures. The term "non-verbal leakage" got its origin in literature in 1968, leading to many subsequent studies on the topic throughout the 1970s, with related studies continuing today.

The Silent Talker Lie Detector is an attempt to increase the accuracy of the most common lie detector, the polygraph, which does not directly measure whether the subject is truthful, but records physiological measures that are associated with emotional responses. The Silent Talker gives the evaluator access to viewing microexpressions by adding a camera to the process. The creators claim that microexpressions are actual indicators of lying, while many other things could cause an emotional response. Since microexpressions are fleeting, the camera allows the examiner to capture data that otherwise would have been missed. However, the scientific community is not convinced that this system accomplishes what it claims and some call it pseudoscience.

Othello error occurs when a suspicious observer discounts cues of truthfulness. Essentially the Othello error occurs, Paul Ekman states, "when the lie catcher fails to consider that a truthful person who is under stress may appear to be lying," their non-verbal signals expressing their worry at the possibility of being disbelieved. A lie-detector or polygraph may be deceived in the same way by misinterpreting nervous signals from a truthful person. The error is named after William Shakespeare's tragic play Othello; the dynamics between the two main characters, Othello and Desdemona, are a particularly well-known example of the error in practice.

Mark G. Frank is a communication professor and department chair, and an internationally recognized expert on human nonverbal communication, emotion, and deception. He conducts research and does training on micro expressions of emotion and of the face. His research studies include other nonverbal indicators of deception throughout the rest of the body. He is the Director of the Communication Science Center research laboratory that is located on the North Campus of the University at Buffalo. Under his guidance, a team of graduate researchers conduct experiments and studies for private and government entities. Frank uses his expertise in communication and psychology to assist law enforcement agencies in monitoring both verbal and nonverbal communication.

Timothy R. Levine is an American communication professor, prolific researcher, and theorist. He is Distinguished Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Levine is credited as one of the most central and prolific researchers in the field of Communication Studies, is known for his work as the creator of truth-default theory, his developmental work on the veracity effect, and editing of the encyclopedia of deception. He is the author of Duped, published by The University of Alabama Press.

David M. Markowitz is a communication professor at the University of Oregon who specializes in the study of language and deception. Much of his work focuses on how technological channels impact the encoding and decoding of messages. His work has captured the attention of magazines and outlets in popular culture; he writes articles for Forbes magazine about deception. Much of his research has utilized analyses of linguistic and analytic styles of writing, for example, Markowitz's work on pet adoption ads was referenced in a website featuring tips on how to write better pet adoption ads.

fMRI lie detection is a field of lie detection using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). FMRI looks to the central nervous system to compare time and topography of activity in the brain for lie detection. While a polygraph detects anxiety-induced changes in activity in the peripheral nervous system, fMRI purportedly measures blood flow to areas of the brain involved in deception.

Motivation impairment effect (MIE) is a hypothesised behavioral effect relating to the communication of deception. The MIE posits that people who are highly motivated to deceive are less successful in their goal when their speech and mannerisms are observed by the intended audience. This is because their nonverbal cues, such as adaptor gestures, sweating, kinesic behaviors, verbal disfluencies, etc, tend to be more pronounced due to increased stress, cognitive load, and heightened emotional state. There is some disagreement regarding the MIE hypothesis, with a few nonverbal communication scholars arguing that deception should not be examined as separate for senders and receivers, but rather as an integral part of the overall process.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Levine, Timothy R. (2014-05-23). "Truth-Default Theory (TDT)". Journal of Language and Social Psychology . 33 (4): 378–392. doi:10.1177/0261927x14535916. ISSN   0261-927X. S2CID   146916525.
  2. ↑ "Deception". Timothy R. Levine. Retrieved 2018-10-26.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Levine, Timothy (2014). "Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A Theory of Human Deception and Deception Detection". Journal of Language and Social Psychology . 33: 378–392. doi:10.1177/0261927X14535916. S2CID   146916525.
  4. ↑ Buller, D. B.; Burgoon, J. K. (1996). "Interpersonal Deception Theory". Communication Theory . 6 (3): 203–242. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x. S2CID   146464264.
  5. ↑ Levine, Timothy R.; Kim, Rachel K.; Hamel, Lauren M. (2010-11-04). "People Lie for a Reason: Three Experiments Documenting the Principle of Veracity". Communication Research Reports . 27 (4): 271–285. doi:10.1080/08824096.2010.496334. ISSN   0882-4096. S2CID   36429576.
  6. ↑ Daly, John A.; Wiemann, John M. (2013-01-11). Strategic Interpersonal Communication. Routledge. ISBN   9781136563751.
  7. ↑ McCornack, Steven; Parks, Malcolm (1986). "Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side of Trust". Annals of the International Communication Association . 9: 377–389. doi:10.1080/23808985.1986.11678616.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Levine, Timothy R. "Deception Research at Michigan State University". msu.edu.
  9. ↑ McCornack, Steven A.; Parks, Malcolm R. (1986-01-01). "Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side of Trust". Annals of the International Communication Association . 9 (1): 377–389. doi:10.1080/23808985.1986.11678616. ISSN   2380-8985.
  10. ↑ Zuckerman, Miron; DePaulo, Bella M.; Rosenthal, Robert (1981), "Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 14, pp. 1–59, doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60369-x, ISBN   978-0-12-015214-8 , retrieved 2022-05-31
  11. 1 2 Levine, Timothy; Hee, Park; McCornack, Steven (1999). "Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the "veracity effect"". Communication Monographs . 66 (2): 125–144. doi:10.1080/03637759909376468.
  12. ↑ Vrij, A., & Baxter, M. (1999). Accuracy and confidence in detecting truths andlies in elaborations and denials: Truth bias, lie bias and individual differences. Expert evidence, 7(1), 25-36.
  13. 1 2 Masip, Jaume; Garrido, Eugenio; Herrero, Carmen (2009). "Heuristic versus Systematic Processing of Information in Detecting Deception: Questioning the Truth Bias". Psychological Reports. 105 (1): 11–36. doi:10.2466/PR0.105.1.11-36. PMID   19810430. S2CID   34448167.
  14. ↑ Levine, Timothy R.; Anders, Lori N.; Banas, John; Baum, Karie Leigh; Endo, Keriane; Hu, Allison D. S.; Wong, Norman C. H. (February 28, 2000). "Norms, expectations, and deception: A norm violation model of veracity judgments". Communication Monographs . 67 (2): 123–137. doi:10.1080/03637750009376500. ISSN   0363-7751. S2CID   144416761.
  15. 1 2 Levine, Timothy R.; Park, Hee Sun; McCornack, Steven A. (June 1999). "Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the "veracity effect"". Communication Monographs . 66 (2): 125–144. doi:10.1080/03637759909376468. ISSN   0363-7751.
  16. ↑ "Deception". Timothy R. Levine. Retrieved 2018-10-25.
  17. ↑ Levine, Timothy R.; McCornack, Steven A. (June 1996). "A Critical Analysis of the Behavioral Adaptation Explanation of the Probing Effect". Human Communication Research . 22 (4): 575–588. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00380.x. ISSN   0360-3989.
  18. ↑ Street, C. N. H. (2015). "ALIED: Humans as adaptive lie detectors" (PDF). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition . 4 (4): 335–343. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.06.002.
  19. 1 2 DePaulo, B.; Lindsay, J. J; Malone, B. E.; Muhlenbruck, L.; Charlton, K.; Cooper, H. (2003). "Cues to deception". Psychological Bulletin. 129 (1): 74–118. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74. PMID   12555795.
  20. ↑ DePaulo, B.; Kashy, D. A.; Kirkendol, S. E.; Wyer, M. M.; Epstein, J. A. (1996). "Lying in everyday life". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 70 (5): 979–995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979. PMID   8656340.
  21. ↑ Bond, G. D.; Malloy, D. M.; Arias, E. A.; Nunn, S. N.; Thompson, L. A. (2005). "Lie-biased decision making in prison". Communication Reports. 18 (1–2): 9–19. doi:10.1080/08934210500084180. S2CID   144692545.
  22. ↑ DePaulo, P. J.; DePaulo, B. M. (1989). "Can deception by salespersons and customers be detected through nonverbal behavioural cues?". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 19 (18): 1552–1577. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01463.x.
  23. ↑ Masip, Jaume; Alonso, Hernán; Garrido, Eugenio; Herrero, Carmen (2009). "Training to detect what? The biasing effects of training on veracity judgments". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 23 (9): 1282–1296. doi:10.1002/acp.1535.
  24. ↑ Levine, Timothy (2011). "Sender Demeanor: Individual Differences in Sender Believability Have a Powerful Impact on Deception Detection Judgments" (PDF). Squarspace.
  25. 1 2 3 Verschuere, Bruno; Shalvi, Shaul (2014-05-19). "The Truth Comes Naturally! Does It?". Journal of Language and Social Psychology . 33 (4): 417–423. doi:10.1177/0261927x14535394. hdl: 1854/LU-5772963 . ISSN   0261-927X. S2CID   147101193.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.