Mark A. deTurck

The Behavioral Correlates of Sanctioned and Unsanctioned Deceptive Communication

Ninety-three students were randomly assigned to one of three veracity conditions: (1) truthful, (2) unsanctioned-deceptive, or (3) sanctioned-deceptive. Participants in the truthful condition were honest when reporting strategies used when attempting to unscramble a series of anagrams. Students in the sanctioned-deceptive and unsanctioned-deceptive condition were implicated to cheat (by looking at the answers) on the anagram task by a research confederate. Students in the sanctioned condition were asked by an experimenter to conceal their cheating by lying to the interviewer about their “high score” on the anagram task whereas students in the unsanctioned condition were not given any instructions about how to answer the interviewers questions regarding their anagram-solving strategies. All interviews were videotaped and verbal and nonverbal behaviors were analyzed by four student-coders. Results indicated that unsanctioned deceivers, when compared to sanctioned deceivers, made fewer speech errors and speech hesitations, gazed less at their targets, and used fewer other references.

When communication fails: Physical aggression as a compliance‐gaining strategy

This study investigated the possibility that persuasive agents’ inability to obtain their goals symbolically is the major factor underlying their decisions to use direct coercion as a compliance‐gaining tactic. Several higher‐order interactions were tested to determine the joint effects oj persuasive agents’ communicative failure, persuasive agents’ and persuasive targets’ gender, and the nature of their relationship on agents’ decisions to use violence as a means of achieving their persuasive ends. Results confirmed the hypothesis that males were more likely than females to use violence against a noncompliant male persuasive target in a noninterpersonal relational context. Males were also more likely than females to use direct coercion against persistently noncompliant and noninterpersonal persuasive targets in relational contexts with short‐term consequences.

Baseline familiarity in lie detection

Subjects judged the veracity of truthful and deceptive communicators after viewing 0, 1, 2, or 4 case‐relevant baseline exposures (familiarity) of truthful communication. A positive linear relationship was found between detection accuracy and amount of baseline familiarity. More specifically, observers who viewed four samples of baseline information judged deception more accurately than observers who viewed zero samples of baseline information. Results also indicated an increase in the frequency of truth judgments across familiarity conditions. This increase, however, only approached statistical significance. Results are discussed and future directions in lie detection research are suggested.

Vocal and visual cue training in behavioral lie detection

The present study tested the effect of training observers to detect deception using different behavioral cues. Participants were trained to detect deception using either:(1) vocal‐only cues, (2) visual‐only cues, or (3) a combination of vocal and visual cues. A fourth group of observers did not receive any training and served as a control. Results indicated that trained observers were more successful than untrained observers in detecting deceptive communication. More specifically, observers trained to use either visual or both visual and vocal cues were more accurate detectors of deception than untrained naive observers. No differences were found between training conditions with respect to determining the veracity of truthful communication.

Perjury and Deceptive Judgments: How the Timing and Modality of Witness Deception Affects Jurors' Deceptive Judgments.

Social perceivers either viewed a videotape or read a transcript of a witnesss testimony. The witness encoded four messages, three truthful and one deceptive. In one condition the witness encoded the deceptive message before the truthful messages, whereas in the other condition the truthful messages were encoded before the deceptive message. The witness then was asked a critical “alibi” question regarding his/her activities with the defendant when the alleged crime occurred. The alleged crime in the trial was either mild (breaking a VCR) or severe (killing a neighbors dog). Based on Reeders (Reeder & Brewer, 1979) implicational model of dispositional attributions, it was hypothesized that social perceivers playing the role of jurors would rate the witness more deceptive when he/she told the truth before lying than if he/she lied before telling the truth. In addition, it was hypothesized that due to the effect of modalities on information processing, social perceivers who read the testimony would make s...

Once a liar always a liar: Effects of individuating information on the utilization of base‐rates in deceptive attributions

The present study examined social perceivers’ cognitive processing strategies when formulating deceptive attributions. Based on Reeders (1985) hierarchical schematic attribution model, it was predicted that social perceivers would underutilize deceptive interaction base‐rates (ratio of deceptive interactions to truthful interactions) in favor of individuating information (contextual and relational information). Results confirmed our hypothesis that social perceivers would underutilize the base rate information and overutilize individuating information. The present findings indicated that social perceivers based their deceptive attributions on the nature of their relationship with the liar (friend vs. stranger) and the timing of the deceptive encounter (before truthful interactions vs. after truthful interactions). Women were found to formulate more severe deceptive attributions than men. Results concerning the relational consequences of deception also are discussed.

Case‐relevant vs. case‐irrelevant questioning in experimental lie detection

Observers (N = 121) judged the veracity of four communicators. Before making veracity judgments, observers viewed one of three baseline interview segments for each communicator: (1) a case‐relevant segment, (2) a case‐irrelevant segment, or (3) both case‐relevant and irrelevant segments. Observers were also cued to use one of three judgmental priming cues while making their veracity attribution. Specifically, observers were instructed to pay close attention to anothers: (1) verbal message (plausibility), (2) nonverbal message, or (3) nervousness. A fourth control group of observers were not cued to use any specific cue while watching the videotapes. It was predicted that observers watching a case‐relevant baseline interview would detect deception more accurately than observers watching a case‐irrelevant baseline interview. Results indicated that individuals who viewed a case‐relevant baseline segment before judging deception were more accurate than individuals who viewed a case‐irrelevant baseline segmen...