NONVERBAL CUES TO DECEPTION AMONG INTIMATES, FRIENDS, AND STRANGERS
David B. Buller R. Kelly Aune
ABSTRACT: Buller and Burgoon (in press) propose that deceivers attempt to encode strategically nonverbal cues which indicate nonimmediacy and project a positive image. At the same time, deceivers leak arousal and negative affect via their non- verbal display. This experiment tested these predictions, while examining the influ- ence of relational history on deception cues and the stability of deception cues within deceptive conversations. The nonverbal behavior of 130 strangers, friends, and intimates was measured. Results indicated that deceivers signalled nonimme- diacy, arousal, and negative affect, but they did not appear to project a positive image. Deception cues were mediated by relational history and showed consider- able temporal variation. Strangers leaked more arousal and negative affect than friends and intimates. Further, deceivers, particularly deceiving friends and inti- mates, seemed to monitor and control their nonverbal behavior during deception by suppressing arousal and negative affect cues and moderating nonimmediate behavior.
Research into behavioral cues to deception has linked several types of behavior with deceptive intent. Recent meta-analyses and summaries provide some of the best evidence on the cues related to deception (De- Paulo, Stone, and Lassiter, 1985a; Kraut, 1980; Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981; Zuckerman & Driver, 1985). Zuckerman and Driver report that 58% of the behaviors examined in two or more of the studies they meta-analyzed reliably distinguish truthtellers from liars. Further, a number of additional experiments not included in the meta-analyses provide evidence of recurrent patterns in deceivers' behavior.
Buller and Burgoon (in press) argue that the behaviors which distin- guish truthtellers from liars can be characterized as either strategic or
David B. Buller is an assistant professor of Communication at the University of Arizona. R. Kelly Aune is an assistant professor of Speech Communication at the University of Hawaii. Address all correspondence to Dr. David B. Buller, Dept. of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.
nonstrategic. According to Buller and Burgoon, strategic nonverbal behav- iors are encoded to reduce the deceiver's responsibility for the deceptive statement and to avoid the negative consequences of detection. Buller and Burgoon identify four classes of strategic nonverbal behaviors: (a)uncer- tainty and vagueness, (b) nonimmediacy, reticence, and withdrawal, (c) disassociation, and (d) image-protecting behavior.
In contrast, some nonverbal behaviors inadvertently leak the deceiv- er's deceptive intent. Buller and Burgoon's notion of nonstrategic leakage behaviors incorporates a substantial portion of Ekman and Friesen's (1969) leakage hypothesis and Zuckerman et al.'s (1981) four-factor theory of deception behavior. Nonstrategic cues leak information about arousal and nervousness and negative emotional reactions which often occur when the communicator deceives. Another cognitive change which often results in nonstrategic deception cues is an increased cognitive effort directed at controlling the strategic behaviors and masking the cues of anxiety and negative affect. As Zuckerman et al. argue, this increased effort can pro- duce mixed or inconsistent messages which create an incompetent presen- tation.
From Buller and Burgoon's (in press) review, nonverbal cues appear to play the most significant role in two classes of strategic behavior--non- immediacy, reticence, and withdrawal behaviors and image-protecting behaviors--and in two classes of nonstrategic leakage--arousal and nervousness cues and negative affect cues. In contrast, uncertainty and vagueness, disassociation, and incompetent communication performances are comprised largely of verbal cues and therefore were not investigated in this experiment.
Nonimmediacy, Reticence, and Withdrawal
Nonverbally, deceivers appear to indicate nonimmediacy, reticence, and withdrawal through the use of shorter replies, more pauses, and longer response latencies (Baskett & Freedle, 1974; deTurck & Miller, 1985; Feldman, Devin-Sheehan, & Allen, 1978; Goldstein, 1923; Knapp, Hart, & Dennis, 1974; Krauss, Geller, & Olson, 1976; Kraut, 1978; Mehrabian, 1971; Motley, 1974). Similarly, Mehrabian (1972)and Knapp et al. (1974) report that liars decrease the frequency and duration of glances, decrease forward body lean, and increase distance. The overriding result of these studies is that deceivers become more withdrawn and inaccessible to their conversational partners, perhaps in an effort to hinder surveillance and probing by a suspicious partner. Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall, Larrance, and Rosenthal (1979) found that deceptive answers do in fact create impres-
271
DAVID B. BULLER, R. KELLY AUNE
sions of less personal involvement. In the verbal domain, Kuiken (1981) reported that deceivers use more nonimmediate language when they fabri- cate a reply, and the Zuckerman and Driver (1985) meta-analysis supports the use of verbal nonimmediacy by liars.
This conclusion, however, has not always been supported. Studies have showed that some liars increased, some decreased, and some alter- nated between increasing and decreasing their reaction time (English, 1926; Marston, 1920) and one study (Matarazzo, Wiens, Jackson, & Manaugh, 1970) found the topic influenced whether liars gave shorter or longer answers and had shorter or longer response latencies. Further, some experiments failed to find gaze differences between liars and truthtellers (Matarazzo et al., 1970; McClintock & Hunt, 1975) or found increased eye contact from liars (Riggio & Friedman, 1983). DePau[o et alo (1985a) have claimed that liars do not avert their eyes any more than truthtellers do. However, the weight of the findings appears to support the following hypothesis:
HI: Deceivers will display more nonverbal behaviors indicative of nonimmediacy, reticence, and withdrawal than truthtellers.
Image-Protection
The notion of image-protecting behavior was first suggested by De- Paulo et al. (1985a). These authors speculate that a major objective of deceivers is to protect their image. Deceivers do so by displaying innocu- ous conversational behaviors such as nodding, smiling, and refraining from interruptions. Presumably, such behaviors deflect attention away from the deceiver by maintaining a positive demeanor. In fact, evidence of a more pleasant demeanor by deceivers is mixed. A few experiments have found that liars do encode more smiling, nodding, and pleasant faces, particularly if they are not anxious (e.g., Ekman, Friesen & Scherer, 1976; Mehrabian, 1971, 1972); however, more studies find the opposite pattern or no differences in these behaviors (e.g., Bennett, 1978; Ekman & Frie- sen, 1974; Feldman et al., 1978; Hocking & Leathers, 1980; Kraut, 1978; Mehrabian, 1972; Zuckerman eta[. , 1981). Finally, the meta-analyses generally conclude that smiling decreases when a communicator deceives. While these results do not make it clear what deceivers do to protect their image, it is an appealing hypothesis that deserves further investigation:
H2: Deceivers will display more nonverbal behaviors designed to pro- tect their image (i.e., project a positive demeanor) than truthtell- ers.
272
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
Arousal and Nervousness
That deception induces arousal is one of the more consistently cited propositions in the deception literature. It is a major component in Ekman and Friesen's (1969) leakage hypothesis and Zuckerman et al.'s (1981) four-factor theory about behaviors emitted during deception. These re- searchers propose that arousal is "leaked" by the actions of deceivers. This leakage, however, is moderated by the extent to which actors can monitor and exercise control over particular communication channels, resulting in a leakage hierarchy among the channels of nonverbal communication. Deceivers are least likely to display arousal cues in the face and most likely to display them in the body and voice (DePaulo et al., 1985a; DePaulo, Zuckerman, & Rosenthal, 1980; Ekman & Friesen, 1969, 1974; Zuckerman & Driver, 1985).
The research on arousal-linked deception cues generally supports the leakage hierarchy. The meta-analyses, as well as experiments not included in them (Berrien & Huntington, 1943; Clark, 1975; Ekman et al., 1976; Ekman, Friesen, O'Sullivan & Scherer, 1980; Hocking & Leathers, 1980; Knapp et al., 1974; McClintock & Hunt, 1975; Mehrabian, 1971; O'Hair, Cody, & McLaughlin, 1981; Riggio & Friedman, 1983; Streeter, Krauss, Geller, Olson, & Apple, 1977), have found that liars engage in more blink- ing, pupil dilation or instability, self- and object-manipulations, higher pitch, vocal nervousness, more speech errors and hesitations, more word repetitions, and less gesturing. Research has been mixed on whether liars engage in more or less postural shifting; random leg, foot, and head movement; gestural activity; and other bodily indicators of nervousness (cf. Ekman & Friesen, 1974; Ekman et al., 1976; Knapp et al., 1974; Hocking & Leathers, 1980; Mehrabian, 1972). It may be that liars attempt to suppress bodily activity to mask their anxiety. Alternatively, the lesser gestural animation and bodily movement together may be indicative of less involvement and commitment to what one is saying. Either way, the net result is often stiff, restrained trunk and limb positions indicative of ten- sion.
H3: Deceivers will display more nonverbal behaviors indicative of arousal and nervousness than truthtellers.
Negative Affect
Ekman and Friesen (1969) and Zuckerman et al. (1981) also believe that deception is an unpleasant experience for most communicators. Consequently, one of the clues to deception that may be leaked is negative
273
DAVID B. BULLER, R. KELLY AUNE
affect. As already noted, some experiments report that deceivers smile less and display fewer positive head nods. Thus, deceivers may be revealing a state of negative affect by failing to give positive feedback to their conver- sational partners. The reduction in gaze reported in some studies (e.g., Knapp et al., 1974) may be a further indication of liars experiencing un- pleasant emotional states, which they attempt to mask by closing off the visual channel. In sum, while only a few studies have focused directly on negative affect, the data tend to support such displays as one by-product of deception:
H4: Deceivers will display more nonverbal behaviors indicative of negative affect than truthtellers.
It is apparent from the foregoing discussion that some nonverbal cues, particularly smiling and head nodding, can serve multiple functions in a deceptive conversation. For instance, smiling and head nodding may decrease when deceivers experience negative affect; however, smiling and head nodding may increase as deceivers attempt to present a positive image. Also, smiling may function as an immediacy cue, although Buller and Burgoon (in press) did not include it in their nonimmediacy classifica- tion. As an immediacy cue, smiling may decrease during deception. The multi-functional nature of some of the nonverbal cues makes predictions about specific cues, difficult. Therefore, general hypotheses about the display of nonimmediacy, image-protecting, arousal, and negative affect cues were formulated in this study.
Moderating Factors
Although there appears to be some consensus in this research, several important issues remain unexplored that could modify the conclusions on the nonverbal cues to deception. One issue is whether the cues identified in previous research--research which has examined almost exclusively deception among strangers--are generalizable to deceiving relational partners such as friends and intimates. Three factors may alter the nature of deception when communicators deceive friends and intimates: (1) deceiv- ers' belief that relational partners can detect deceit better than strangers due to their greater familiarity with the communicators (Buller, 1987; McCornack & Parks, 1985), (2) deceivers' increased concern about the negative consequences if deceit is detected by the relational partners (Buller, 1987; Ekman, 1985), and (3) deceivers' prior experience deceiving the relational aartners.
274
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
The first two factors potentially could increase the number of cues displayed by communicators when deceiving relational partners. In partic- ular, the presence of a relationship may increase communicators' motiva- tion to lie successfully which, in turn, would increase some of their strate- gic behaviors such as nonimmediacy and image-protecting behavior. In their meta-analyses, Zuckerman et al. (1981) and Zuckerman and Driver (1985) showed that under high motivation more changes in nonverbal behavior were evident in deceivers than under low motivation. Some behaviors, such as vocal pitch and hand shrugs increased as motivation increased, whereas other behaviors such as blinking, facial expressions, head movements, adaptors, postural shifts, response length, and speech rate decreased. Further, deceivers' anxiety about and negative reactions to lying may be higher when attempting to deceive relational partners, result- ing in more arousal and negative affect leakage.
DePaulo and her colleagues (DePaulo et al., 1980; DePaulo, Stone & Lassiter, 1985b) have speculated that while motivation increases deceivers' attempts to control their behavioral displays, their success at controlling cues will be determined by the amenability of particular channels to control. This argument along with the leakage hierarchy suggests that if relational partners are more motivated to deceive successfully, they will more successfully control facial cues than body and vocal cues. DePaulo, however, notes that control over one's behaviors decreases as emotional reactions to deception increase. This suggests that, as relationships be- come more intimate, control over leakage will become more difficult as the detection apprehension (fear of detection as defined by DePaulo et al., 1985b) increases. Thus, one might conclude that friends would be most successful at masking cues which leak arousal and negative affect, particu- larly in the face, whereas strangers and intimates would exhibit more of these cues.
Finally, a communicator may have prior experience deceiving a relational partner and this prior experience could affect a communicator's behavior in much the same way that planning and rehearsal has been shown to affect lies prepared for strangers. O'Hair et al. (1981) and Zuck- erman and Driver (1985) found that deceivers given time to rehearse their lies have more dilated pupils, engage in more postural shifts, increase long body adaptors, respond more quickly, give shorter answers, speak faster, display more affirmative head nods, exhibit briefer laughter or smiling, and use somewhat fewer gestures than deceivers who give spontaneous lies. Thus, planning and rehearsal may allow communicators to conceal some deception cues such as reducing response latency and providing more
275
DAVID B. BULLER, R~ KELLY AUNE
affirmative responses, but it can also backfire as can high motivation. Thus, an additional objective of the present experiment was to examine whether the presence of a relationship with the target affects a communi- cator's nonverbal behavior during deception.
A second issue related to the generalizability of the conclusions about nonverbal cues to deception concerns the display of these cues in actual deceptive interactions. This concern stems from the lack of interactive designs in many of the previous experiments. Only a few experiments have permitted deceivers to interact with the targets of their deceit (cf., Toris & DePaulo, 1985). Instead, many experiments have communicators (1) encode deception in isolation while being videotaped or filmed or (2) encode deception while interacting with a receiver who is restricted to follow a predetermined script. Further, in the analyses of interactive de- signs, very little attention has been paid to the consistency with which deceivers display nonverbal cues over the duration of the conversation. There are reasons to believe that an interaction can influence the display of nonverbal behaviors. First, communicators may expend more effort to control their nonverbal displays when interacting with a receiver who can probe their statements, set traps, and compare an answer to a previous statement. That is, they may be more motivated in interactive designs. In addition, the mere possibility that a receiver can respond to the communi- cator's messages may increase the communicator's arousal over that experienced when presenting to a camera, in a public speaking setting, or in other situations where the receiver's ability to detect deception is re- stricted~
There is also some reason to speculate that changes in a communica- tor's nonverbal behavior during deception will vary as the conversation progresses. First, to maintain a deception throughout a conversation may require many small individual lies. While the initial few lies may be antici- pated by the communicator, it is likely that several lies must be created on the spur-of-the-moment, in response to statements by the receiver. Thus, communicators may have less ability to control their behaviors and mask nonstrategic leakage, because they must expend greater cognitive effort creating spontaneous lies. Second, interaction might affect deception cues to the extent that communicators receive information about the success of their deception and the receivers' suspicions. If communicators perceive that suspicion is low, they may reduce their efforts to mask nonstrategic leakage and to encode strategic behaviors indicative of nonimmediacy and image-protection. On the other hand, heightened suspicion may increase arousal and negative affect cues, as well as increase strategic cues such
,~/b
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
nonimmediacy and image protection. Consequently, a final objective of this experiment was to see if a communicator 's nonverbal behavior during deception varies over time in the conversation.
Method
Participants
One hundred eighty-three undergraduate students from a large southwestern university participated in this study. Forty-eight targets were recruited from upper division communication courses and required to bring to the experiment a person with whom they had an intimate relationship (N = 47) and a person with whom they had a friendship (N = 42). No gender requirement was specified in the request for the intimate and friend. Thus, the intimate designation refers to relationship development not sexual intimacy, though some intimates were sexual partners with the targets. Strangers (/9 = 46) were recruited from a lower division communication course and had not met the targets prior to the experimental sessions.
There were more female than male participants in the study (Table 1). There- fore, the most common sex composition was female-female, and the least common was male-male. Examining relationship level, there were more cross-sex intimate dyads than same-sex intimate dyads, with male~male intimate dyads being rare; however, a chi-square analysis showed that this variation by relationship level was not significant, ;(2(6, N = 130) = 8.53, p > .05. Each gender composition was split equally between the truth and deception conditions, ~2(3, N = 130)=0.80, p>.05. The potential confounding of relationship level and sex composition is noteworthy; however, it is not clear from past research how this might affect de- ceivers' behaviors. In the only study examining sex composition, DePaulo et al. (1985b) argued that deceivers are more motivated to deceive successfully in cross-
TABLE 1
Sex Composition of Experimental Dyads
Male Source Female Source Male Target Female Target Male Target Female Target
sex stranger dyads, because the opportunity for a more intimate future interaction motivates the deceiver to make a favorable impression on the opposite-sex target. Whether this motivation generalizes to cross-sex intimate dyads is not established. However, deceivers may be less concerned with creating a positive impression on a cross-sex intimate than on a cross-sex stranger, because the continuation of the intimate relationship does not depend on making a good impression on the intimate in the experimental interactions. Thus, an overabundance of cross-sex stranger dyads would raise greater concern than the disproportionate number of cross-sex intimate dyads in this experiment.
Target Pretest
A pretest assessed the target's evaluations of the relationships with the intimate and friend, using the Wheeless and Grotz (1975) trust scale and Fisher's (Fisher, 1981; Narus, 1981) relationship scale. In addition, three items selected from Wheeless and Grotz' (1976) self-disclosure scale measured the degree of self- disclosure by the partner and by the target. The target also completed the trust scale for strangers in general. Analyses reported elsewhere confirmed that targets had a more intimate relationship with the intimate than the friend and that inti- mates were trusted most and strangers least (Buller, 1987).
Source Pretest and Posttest
The source pretest consisted of three personality measures: (1) Crowne and Marlowe's (1964) Social Desirability scale, (2) Snyder's (1974) Self-Monitoring scale, and (3) Christie and Gels' (1970) Machiavellianism IV scale. Responses to these personality scales were used as topics for the experimental interactions, since DePaulo et al. (1985b) assert that many lies between relational partners are iden- tity-relevant, encoded to influence how partners perceive personality traits, inten- tions, abilities, attitudes, values, behaviors, and social characteristics. These topics may be more salient to and more likely to be detected by relational partners than the objective, factual topics employed in many deception experiments (Comadena, 1982; DePaulo et al., 1985a; Miller et al., 1981; Miller & Burgoon, 1982).
Procedure
The target brought the intimate and friend to the experimental session where they were joined by a stranger. The experimenter explained that the study exam- ined how people in different relationships communicate. After consenting to be videotaped, the stranger, friend, and intimate were taken to separate rooms where they completed the source pretest. The target was seated at a table in the corner of the interaction lab and completed the target pretest. When the target finished the pretest, the experimenter gave her/him a blank copy of the three personality scales. The experimenter told the target that in the subsequent interactions the target would be interviewing each source about his/her responses to the scale. The target was to begin by asking for the answer to the first question on the scale and then to discuss the source's reasons for the answer. The target was then to move to the second question, asking for the answer and discussing the reasons for the answer. The target was to continue with this format until the experimenter returned after
278
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
five minutes to stop the interview. The target was told to take as long as he/she wanted to discuss an answer and not to become concerned if all the questions on the scale were not discussed. The target was given a minute to look over the state- ments on the scale to be used in the first interaction.
Meanwhile, an experimental assistant gave similar instructions to the first source. For truthful sources, the last instruction was to be honest in their answers and their reasons for their answers. For deceptive sources, the final instruction was to lie about all their answers (e.g., say "false" when actually responded "true" on the scale item and say "true" when actually responded "false") and to provide false reasons for their answers. After this final instruction the source was immediately escorted by the assistant to the interaction lab to avoid any opportunity for plan- ning the deceit.
When the source arrived, he/she was seated in a chair facing the target. The chairs were placed approximately 3.5 feet apart. The experimenter briefly repeated the interview instructions, reminded the interactants that they would have five minutes to discuss the source's responses, signalled an experimental assistant to begin the videotape recorder, and left the room.
During the interaction, an experimental assistant, seated behind a two-way mirror, recorded the responses the source reported he/she had given to each state- ment on the personality scales. The experimenter returned to the interaction lab at the end of five minute period and stopped the interaction. The experimenta'l assis- tant immediately returned the source to the pretest room and administered the source posttest and a debriefing protocol. The second and third interactions fol- lowed that same procedure as the first interaction.
The order of relationships and personality tests in the three experimental inter- actions was counterbalanced to protect against order effects. The deception manip- ulation was varied such that at least one source deceived the target and at least one told the truth. Thus, for half of the targets, two sources deceived while for the other half, two sources told the truth. In the 14 cases where only two sources appeared at the experimental session, one deceived and the other told the truth. This proce- dure produced an equal number of deceptive and truthful interactions.
The target was debriefed following the third interaction. While a few targets had suspected that the experiment had some purpose other than simply observing how people communicate within different relationships, no targets deduced that deception was being examined.
Behavioral Coding Fourteen undergraduate students enrolled in a nonverbal communication class
were trained to code the nonverbal behaviors emitted by the sources (deceivers and truthtellers)in the 130 experimental interactions. The coders were trained in coding procedures by the experimenter. This training consisted of describing the coding procedures, providing definitions and examples of the behaviors to be mea- sured, and checking the measurements made during the first six interactions for mistakes. Coders worked individually and were assigned to code a subset of non- verbal behaviors (e.g., eye behavior and kinesic behavior). Each coder measured the assigned behaviors of sources in approximately half the groups.
Each interaction was divided into five one-minute periods. During each pe- riod, coders made two types of behavioral assessments. For some behaviors, cod-
279
DAVID B. BULLER, R. KELLY AUNE
ers counted the number of behaviors emitted during each one minute period. For other behaviors, coders provided Likert-type ratings of the behaviors at the end of each one-minute period. Five sets of nonverbal behaviors were measured (see Table 2). These nonverbal behaviors were subjected to principal axis factor analy- sis. Three small factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than one and primary Ioadings exceeding .50. Factor one, gestural animation, was comprised of illus-
TABLE 2
Interrater Reliabilities
Behavior
BODY MOVEMENTS: 1. Forward Lean 2. Postural Shifts 3. Leg and Foot Movement 4. Chair Twisting
3. Short Face and Head Adaptors 4. Long Face and Head Adaptors 5. Short Body Adaptors 6. Long Body Adaptors 7. Short Object Adaptors 8. Long Object Adaptors
Count Rating (1 = Not Animated, 7 = Very An i mated) Count Count Count Count Count Count
FACE AND HEAD BEHAVIOR: 1. Facial Pleasantness
2. General Happiness 3. Smiling 4. Head Nodding 5. Head Shaking
trator frequency and general animation rating (alpha reliability r = .89; interrater reliability r = .81). Factor two, vocal activity, included ratings of vocal clarity, loudness, pitch variety, pleasantness, rate, and fluency (alpha reliability r = .86; interrater reliability r = .70). Factor three, general pleasantness, contained ratings of facial pleasantness and general happiness, and frequency of smiling (alpha re- l iability r = .82; interrater reliability r = .89). Factor totals were created by sum- ming the items within each factor. When combining counts and ratings in the general animation and pleasantness factors, individual items were first converted to z-scores.
To check the interrater reliability, all coders rated the first group of three inter- actions and two other groups of three interactions chosen at random from the set of 48 groups. Ebel's intraclass correlation was calculated as a measure of interrater reliability (Table 2). Most interrater reliability coefficients were high. The backward lean and shrug emblem measures and the vocal intensity rating were dropped from the analysis, because they had very low interrater reliability.
Statistical Analysis A series of three (relational history) X 2 (deception condition) X 5 (time period)
MANOVAs were used to test hypotheses one through four. In all analyses, the time period factor was treated as a within-subjects factor and for both this factor and the relational history factor, polynomial contrasts were performed to test for linear and nonlinear trends.
In these analyses, three comparisons were of primary interest. First, the non- verbal behaviors of truthtellers and~deceivers were compared. It was expected that deceivers would display more nonimmediacy, image-protection, arousal, and
281
DAVID B. BULLER, R. KELLY AUNE
negative affect than truthtellers. Second, the nonverbal behaviors of truthtelling and deceiving intimates, friends, and strangers were compared by examining the re- lationship development by deception condition interactions. Third, the nonverbal behaviors of truthtellers and deceivers were compared across five one-minute inter- vals in the recorded conversations. This comparison was tested by the interaction between deception condition and time period and by the three-way interaction between relationship development, deception condition, and time period. These two interactions provide information on the occurrence and stability of behavior changes induced by deception.
Results
Manipulation Check
To check the deception manipulation, a posttest asked the sources whether they told the truth or lied during the interactions and the percent- age of truth contained in the source's communication. All 66 sources in the deception condition reported that they lied to the target, and all 64 sources in the truth condition reported that they had told the truth. In addition, deceptive sources communicated very little truthful information (M = 14.8%), while truthful sources communicated almost entirely true information (M = 91.8%). The answers given by the source to the targets during the conversations also were compared to the sources' actual an- swers on the personality scales. Forty-one of the deceiving sources gave false answers to all the questions (M = t2.45 questions/interview), and the 25 deceptive sources who did not provide all false answers averaged only 1.46 true answers/interview. Similarly, 41 of the truthful sources gave true answer to all questions (M = 11.24 questions/interview) and the 23 truthful sources who did not provide entirely true answers averaged only 1.90 false answers/interview. Taken together, these data indicate that the deception manipulation was successful.
Nonimmediacy, Reticence, and Withdrawal
Hypothesis one predicted that deceivers would exhibit more behav- iors indicative of nonimmediacy, reticence, and withdrawal than truthtell- ers. Seven behaviors that potentially communicate nonimmediacy were included as dependent variables in the MANOVA: forward lean, body angle, mutual gaze, one-sided look by target, one-sided look by source, no gaze by either conversant, and immediacy rating.
282
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
Contrary to hypothesis one, the MANOVA did not produce a signifi- cant main effect for deception condition, A = .94, F(7,108)= .91, p > .05), but deception condition interacted significantly with relational his- tory and time period. There was a significant linear interaction between relational history and deception condition, A = . 8 5 , F(7,108)=2.71, p = .01 and a significant three-way interactions for the quadratic contrast on relational history, A = . 9 6 , F(7,450)=2.96, p= .005 . Univariate analyses revealed that the linear relational history by deception condition interaction was significant for forward lean, F(1,114) = 4.96, p = .03, and for the frequency of one-sided looks by the target, a measure of the source's gaze avoidance, F(1,114)= 7.02, p = .009. The three-way inter- action was significant for no gaze, F(1,114)=3.94, p= .049 , and for one-sided looks by the source, F(1,114) = 4.79, p = .03.
As predicted by hypothesis one, strangers signalled more nonimme- diacy when deceiving by encoding fewer forward leans (M = .65) than when telling the truth (M = 1.90). Conversely, intimates, and to a lesser degree friends, signalled more nonimmediacy by avoiding the targets' gaze when deceiving. One-sided gazes by the target were more frequent with deceiving intimates (M = 17.65) and friends (M = 17.10) than with truthful intimates (M = 14.40) and friends (M= 16.20). Intimates also displayed more frequent periods of no gaze when deceiving (M = 3.75) than when telling the truth (M = 3.53).
The interactions with time period showed that deceptive friends and intimates became more immediate as the conversations progressed, sug- gesting that they actively managed their display of immediacy cues. Specif- ically, deceptive friends (Ms = 3.37, 4.10, 4.10, 3.58, 3.79 respectively by period) decreased their rate of no gaze in periods 4 and 5 and decep- tive intimates (Ms = 3.95, 3.64, 3.50, 3.32, 4.36) decreased their rate of no gaze from periods 1 to 4. Truthful friends and intimates, in contrast, increased their incidence of no gaze. Similarly, deceptive friends (Ms = 1.95, 3.00, 2.74, 2.16, 2.37) and deceptive intimates (Ms = 2.36, 2.86, 2.54, 2.91, 3.04) increased one-sided gazing after beginning the conversa- tions with less one-sided gazing than truthful friends and intimates. De- ceptive intimates continued to maintain a higher rate of gazing while deceptive friends moderated their one-sided gazing as the conversations progressed. In contrast, deceptive strangers became less immediate late in the conversations, by reducing their one-sided gazing (Ms = 2.70, 2.50, 2.65, 2.40, 2.45), while truthful strangers displayed more gazing over time. Period did not interact significantly with deception condition, A = .94, F(28,1624) = .97, p > .05.
283
DAVID B. BULLER, R. KELLY AUNE
Image-Protecting Behavior
Hypothesis two predicted that deceivers would engage in more image-protecting behavior by maintaining a positive demeanor. To test this hypothesis the sources' head nodding, head shaking, and general pleasant- ness were entered into a MANOVA. The MANOVA failed to support hypothesis two. There were no significant effects on this set of behaviors for the following factors: (1) deception condition, A = .99, F(3,109) = .47, p > .05; (2) relational history by deception condition, A = .97, F(6,109) = .50, p > . 0 5 ; (3) deception condition by time period, A = .97, F(12,1170) = 1.16, p > .05; and (4) relational history by deception condition by time period, A = .96, F(24,1282)= .70, p > .05.
Arousal and Nervousness
Hypothesis three predicted that deceivers would leak arousal and nervousness by displaying more arousal cues than truthtellers. The leakage hierarchy proposes that arousal cues are displayed more in the body and voice than in the face. Therefore, hypothesis three was tested by analyzing nine body behaviors (six types of adaptors, chair twisting, postural shifts, and gestural animation) and the vocal activity factor.
The MANOVA produced a significant main effect for deception condi- tion, A = .83, F(10,95)= 1.97, p = .046 and a significant interaction between relational history and deception condition, A = .73, F(20,190)= 1.66, p = .04. However, this main effect and the two-way interaction was overridden by a significant three-way interaction between relational his- tory, deception condition, and time period, linear contrast on relational history A = .93 F(10,407)= 3.23, p = .001, quadratic contrast on rela- tional history A = .96, F(10,407)= 1.86, p = . 0 4 9 . Inspection of the univariate analyses showed that the three-way interaction was significant for brief head and face adaptors (linear relational history by condition by quadratic period F(1,104)= 4.56, p = .03), brief body adaptors (quadratic relational history by condition by quartic period F(1,104) = 6.57, p = .01 ), long body adaptors (linear relational history by condition by quadratic period F(1,104) = 4.75, p = .03), chair twisting (linear relational history by condition by linear period F(1,104)=4.20, p = .04), general animation (linear relational history by condition by quartic period F(1,104)= 4.53, p = .04), and vocal activity (linear relational history by condition by linear period F(1,104) = 11.16, p = .001).
Contrary to hypothesis three, arousal cues were less apparent in deceivers than in truthtellers. The only cue which consistently signalled
284
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
more arousal in deceivers was chair twisting (strangers: deception M = 2.45, truth M = 2.28; friends Ms = 3.12 and 2.04, respectively; intimates M = 2.68 and 2.38). Beyond this cue, deceptive strangers showed more arousal in their display of brief face and head adaptors (deception M = .39, truth M = .24) and deceptive intimates showed more arousal in their display of vocal activity (deception M = 26.71, truth M = 26.06).
The results imply that deceivers monitored and controlled nonverbal arousal cues. Not only were arousal cues less apparent in deceivers, but the time period effects showed evidence of behavior control. For instance, the display of brief face and head adaptors by deceivers was more stable (and lower) than by truthtellers, particularly among friends (truth Ms = .81, .71, .57, .95, 1.00; deception Ms = .35, .41, .24, .12, .35, by period) and intimates (truth Ms = .60, .80, 1.10, .80, .40; deception Ms = .44, .27, .11, .39, .33). Deceptive initimates reduced brief body adaptors (Ms = .39, .39, .67, .56, .39) and long body adaptors (Ms = .56, .50, .50, .28, .39) at the end of the conversations, and initimates had decreased chair twisting (Ms = 2.76, 2.77, 2.68, 2.38, 2.58) by the end of the con- versations. Finally, there was a substantial reduction in general animation by deceivers from periods 1 to 2; however, only intimates were able to maintain this reduction: strangers Ms = .26, - .11 , .03, .10, .19; friends M s = - . 5 3 , - . 68 , - . 56 , - . 29 , - . 63 ; intimates M s = - . 3 8 , - .72 , -.68, - . 76 , - . 71 . By periods 4 and 5, deceptive strangers and friends had returned to their initial level of animation. The interaction between deception condition and time period was not significant in the MANOVA on arousal cues, A = .94, F(40,1545)= .68, p> .05 .
Negative Affect
Hypothesis four predicted that deceivers would leak negative affect when lying. To test this hypothesis, a MANOVA was performed on the factor assessing general pleasantness and the single item measuring vocal pleasantness. The main effect for deception condition was not significant, A = .97, F(2,108) = 1.56, p > .05. There was, however, a significant linear relational history by deception condition interaction, A = .94, F(2,108)= 3.56, p = .03, and a significant relational history by deception condition by time period interaction, linear relational history contrast A = .99, F(2, 435) = 3.09, p = .047, quadratic relational history contrast A = .98, F(2, 435) = 3.86, p = .02). As would be expected from the leakage hierarchy which proposes that leakage is greater in vocal than in facial channels, univariate analyses revealed that both the two-way interaction, F(1,109)
285
DAVID B. BULLER, R. KELLY AUNE
= 7.14, p= .009 , and the three-way interaction, F(1,109)--4.96, p = .03, were significant only for vocal pleasantness. Consistent with hypoth- esis four, strangers were less vocally pleasant when deceiving (deception M = 4.15, truth M = 5.31). On the other hand, friends and intimates did not express less vocal pleasantness when deceiving (friends: deception M=4 .85 , truth M=4 .56 ; intimates: deception M=4 .66 , truth M = 4.60). The time effect was evident in a tendency by strangers and friends, regardless of deception condition, to express greater vocal pleasantness as the conversations progressed. The deception condition by time period interaction was not significant, A = .99, F(8,870) = .64, p > .05.
Discussion
The findings supported the hypothesized increase in nonimmediacy and negative affect cues during deception. However, the predicted in- crease in arousal cues was only weakly supported and deceivers did not engage in image-protecting behaviors. Deceivers communicated nonim- mediacy through a lack of forward lean and increased gaze avoidance. The possibility also exists that some deceivers exhibited nonimmediacy by gazing at the target only when the target was not gazing at them. This behavior may have been an attempt to monitor the targets' responses to the deceptive source without engaging in eye contact. Conversely, one- sided gazing could be unsuccessful attempts by deceivers to make eye contact and increase immediacy with the target.
In this experiment, negative affect was leaked by deceiving strangers via their vocal cues, rather than via the facial cues assessed by the general pleasantness measure. Not only does this result support the proposition that deceivers experience negative affect during deception, it also con- forms with predictions made from the leakage hierarchy. Namely, the voice has a lower sending capacity than the face and therefore is more likely to leak negative affect (Buller & Burgoon, in press; DePauEo et al., 1985a; Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Zuckerman et al., 1981; Zuckerman & Driver, 1985).
The hypothesized increase in arousal cues due to deception was only evident in the frequency of chair twisting by all sources. Deception did increase the number of brief head and face adaptors by strangers and vocal activity by intimates; however, the more dominant trend was a general decrease in arousal cues by deceivers, resulting in a more rigid, inhibited nonverbal display. Deceivers exhibited fewer adaptors, were less anima- ted, and encoded less vocal activity.
286
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
The results did not support the prediction that deceivers would strate- gically encode a positive demeanor. Deceivers did not increase their rate of head nodding, head shaking, and general pleasantness. It may be pre- mature to dismiss the appealing notion that deceivers attempt to project a positive image to their targets, given the paucity of research on this dimen- sion. Further, in this study friends were slightly more positive vocally, perhaps indicating that deceivers create a positive image via positive vocal cues as well as positive facial cues.
More important than the foregoing effects of deception was the varia- tion in nonverbal deception cues across relationship type and time. All of the main effects of deception on the nonverbal cues were overridden by interactions with relational history. Reviewing these interactions, it appears that strangers displayed more nonverbal cues to deception than either friends or intimates. Specifically, strangers were most nonimmediate, displayed more arousal cues in the body (chair twisting, face and head adaptors, and general animation), and expressed greater negative affect vocally when deceiving. In contrast, friends and intimates were more immediate, indicated less arousal (only displaying chair twisting and vocal activity), and did not leak negative affect when deceiving.
Earlier, three factors were identified that might alter the deception cues emitted by strangers, friends, and intimates: (1) belief that intimates and friends are better able to detect deceit, (2) increased concern for negative consequences of detection by friends and intimates, and (3) prior experience deceiving friends and intimates. All three of these factors suggested that friends and intimates might attempt to monitor and control their nonverbal presentation mo.re than strangers, although the concern for negative consequences might produce a curvilinear trend with friends being most controlled.
The interaction between relational history and deception condition on arousal and negative affect cues implies thatrelational partners did attempt to monitor and control their arousal and negative affect cues more than strangers. There are, however, two qualifications to this conclusion. First, strangers seemed to monitor and control some of their arousal cues, but they were not as successful as relational partners in masking as many arousal cues. Second, friends and intimates were not able to mask success- fully all deception cues. Chair twisting was not controlled well by friends or intimates. Intimates did reduce their frequency of chair twisting late in the deceptive conversations, but they leaked arousal by displaying greater vocal activity throughout the conversations. This last finding may indicate that a compensation effect occurs which deceivers attempt to mask decep- tion cues. That is, when a deceiver controls one set of cues, arousal and negative affect are leaked by other cues.
287
DAVID B. BULLER, R. KELLY AUNE
The three-way interactions with time also provide evidence that deceivers monitored and controlled their nonverbal display. First, some of the deceivers' behaviors were very stable throughout the conversations, whereas the same behaviors by truthtellers varied considerably in the conversations, suggesting that deceivers were controlling these behaviors more than truthtellers. This was true of brief face and head adaptors and to a lesser extent of general animation. Second, deceivers appeared to sup- press some arousal cues which were evident at the outset of the conversa- tions. Specifically, intimates suppressed chair twisting near the end of the conversations and all deceivers reduced their general animation from period I to period 2. Similarly, strangers, while being less vocally pleasant in general, became more vocally pleasant as the conversations progressed. There was also evidence that deceivers, particularly deceptive relational partners, monitored their immediacy behaviors. All deceivers displayed some nonimmediacy; however, friends and intimates increased their immediacy as the conversations progressed. It may be that friends and intimates must exercise care when appearing nonimmediate, reticent, and withdrawn. Buller and Burgoon argue that nonimmediacy serves to dis- tance the deceiver from the deceptive conversation and reduce suspicious- ness, because reticent and withdrawn deceivers provide less information to the target. However, the presence of a relationship with the target may dictate that deceivers maintain at least a moderate level of conversational involvement or they run the risk of violating the relational partners' expec- tations, triggering the suspicion they are trying to avoid. Friends and in- timates may have monitored their immediacy cues and adjusted their immediacy as the conversations progressed.
The relational history and time effects have important implications for research on deception. The overriding effect of relational history in this experiment means that results from deception experiments on strangers should be generalized cautiously to deceiving relational partners. As the experiment shows, one cannot assume that relational partners will behave like strangers when deceiving. Further analysis of the effect of relational history on deception and the factors which underlie this effect is needed before the relational dynamics of deception are clear.
The pervasive time effects in this experiment call for more concern over temporal variation in deception cues. Investigators who merely obtain measures of nonverbal behavior over the entire deceptive interaction run the risk of ignoring theoretically important changes. In this experiment, most deception cues fluctuated over time. Very few changes occurred at the outset of the conversations and were maintained through all five min- utes. Instead, several initial changes dissipated as the conversations pro- gressed, other changes arose only after several minutes of communication
288
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
had transpired, and still other changes were manifested in the middle of the conversation but ceased before the conversation ended. Further tempo- ral analysis is needed to understand the dynamic nature of deceptive communicat ion and the factors that contribute to temporal fluctuations in deceivers' behaviors.
In conclusion, the experiment supported the prediction that deceivers display nonverbal behaviors signalling nonimmediacy, negative affect, and arousal; however, relational history moderated deceivers' nonverbal display. Deceiving friends and intimates may monitor and control decep- tion cues more than deceiving strangers. Temporal variation also was evident in many deception cues, providing further evidence that deceivers at all relational levels monitored and controlled their nonverbal behavior. This study has added additional complexi ty to the deception picture. The data challenge deception researchers to move beyond studies which examine merely strangers and measurements which record only the total amount of behavior change exhibited by deceivers during a conversation.
References
Baskett, G., & Freedle, R. O. (1974). Aspects of language pragmatics and the social percep- tion of lying. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 112-t 31.
Bennett, R. (1978, April). Micromoments. Human Behavior, 34-35. Berrien, F. K., & Huntington, G. H. (1943). An exploratory study of pupillary responses
during deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 443-449. Buller, D. B. (1987). Deception among intimates, friends, and strangers: Attributional biases
due to relationship development. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Boston.
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (in press). Deception. in J. A. Daly and J. M. Wiemann, Communicating strategically: Strategies in interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). Attributes of the newscaster's voice as predictors of his credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 276-28t.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (in press). Introduction to nonverbal commu- nication. New York: Harper & Row.
Burgoon, ]. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.
Christie, R., & Gels, F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Clark, W. R. (1975). A comparison of pupillary response, heart rate, and GSR during decep-
tion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Associa- tion, Chicago.
Comadena, M. E. (1982). Accuracy in detecting deception: Intimate and friendship relation- ships. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 446-472). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.
DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassitef, G. D. (1985a). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323-370). New York: McGraw-Hill.
289
DAVID B. BULLER, R. KELLY AUNE
DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985b). Telling ingratiating lies: Effects of target sex and target attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1191 - 1203.
DePaulo, B. M., Zuckerman, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Detecting deception: Modality effects. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 125-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
deTurck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1985). Deception and arousal: Isolating the behavioral correlates of deception. Human Communication Research, 12, 181-202.
Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: Norton.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88-105.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 288-298.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O'Sullivan, M., & Scherer, K. (1980). Relative importance of face, body and speech in judgments of personality and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 270-277.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Scherer, K. (1976). Body movement and voice pitch in decep- tive interaction. Semiotica, 16, 23-27.
English, H. B. (1926). Reaction-time symptoms of deception. American Journal of Psychol- ogy, 37, 428-429.
Feldman, R. S., Devin-Sheehan, L., & Allen, V. L. (1978). Nonverbal cues as indicators of verbal dissembling. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 217-231.
Fisher, J. L. (1981). Transitions in relationship style from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10. 11-23.
Fisher, J. L, & Narus, L. R. (1981). Sex roles and intimacy in same sex and other sex relation- ships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 444-455.
Friesen, W. V., Ekman, P., & Wallbott, H. (1979). Measuring hand gestures. Journal of Non- verbal Behavior, 4, 97-112.
Goldstein, E. R. (1923). Reaction times and the consciousness of deception. American Journal of Psychology, 34, 562-581.
Hocking, J. E., & Leathers, D. G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoreti- cal perspective. Communication Monographs, 47, 119-131.
Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a commu- nication construct. Human Communication Research, 1, 15-29.
Krauss, R. M., Geller, V., & Olson, C. (1976). Modalities and cues in the detection of decep- tion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Kraut, R. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 380-391.
Kraut, R. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts. Journal of Communication, 30, 209-216.
Kuiken, D. (1981). Nonimmediate language style and inconsistency between private and expressed evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 183-196.
Marston, W. M. (1920). Reaction-time symptoms of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 72-87.
Matarazzo, J. D., Wiens, A. N., Jackson, R. H., & Manaugh, T. S. (1970). Interviewee speech behavior under conditions of endogenously-present and exogenously-induced motivational states. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 141-148.
McClintock, C. C., & Hunt, R. G. (1975). Nonverbal indicators of affect and deception in an interview setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 54-67.
McComack, S. A., & Parks, M. R. (1985). Deception detection and relationship develop- ment: The other side of trust. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 377-389). Beverly Hills: Sage.
290
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5, 64-73.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: AIdine. Miller, G. R., Bauchner, J. E., Hocking, J. E., Fontes, N. E., Kaminski, E. P., & Brandt, D. R.
(1981 ). " . . . and nothing but the truth": How well can observers detect deceptive testi- mony? In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Volume II1: The jury, judicial and trial process. New York: Plenum.
Miller, G. R., & Burgoon, J. K. (1982). Factors affecting witness credibility. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 169-194). New York: Academic Press.
Motley, M. T. (1974). Acoustic correlates of lies. Western Speech, 38, 81-87. O'Hair, H. D., Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1981). Prepared lies, spontaneous lies,
Machiavellianism, and nonverbal communication. Human Communication Research, 7, 325-339.
Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1983). Individual differences and cues to deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 899-915.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Streeter, L. A., Krauss, R. M., Geller, V., OIson, C., & Apple, W. (1977). Pitch changes during attempted deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 345- 350.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1975). Self-disclosure and trust: Conceptualization, measure- ment, and inter-relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
Zuckerman, M., DeFrank, R. S., Hall, J. A., Larrance, D. T., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Facial and vocal cues of deception and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 378-396.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communica- tion of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-59). New York: Academic Press.
Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonver- bal behavior (pp. 129-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
