3. Can the average person accurately detect
deception by means of analyzing the sender’s non-
verbal cues?
Although it is believed that we do rely heavily on
non-verbal cues when interacting with others, the
current literature suggest the answer to the this
question is no.
While we may rely on non-verbal communication
as an indicator of truthfulness, there is no
guarantee that our observations are accurate (Bond
et al, 1992).
4. Individual differences in the ability to detect
lies (Bond & DePaulo, 2008)
Physiological changes related to lying
(Pennebaker & Chew, 1985)
How to appear truthful when telling lies (Frank
& Ekman, 2004)
5. Bond and DePaulo (2008) found that there
were no differences among individual’s ability
to detect lies.
Frank and Ekman (2004) mention in their
research article that, “Research has shown that
facial signs of fear, distress, or enjoyment can
and do betray deception”.
The major differences between the articles of
interest have to do with the specific aspects of
truthfulness or lying that the researches are
interested in.
6. Bond, Omar, Pitre, et al (1992) determined in
their study that lie detection judgments are
barely more accurate than chance.
According to Bond, Kahler, & Paolicelli (1985)
the majority of individuals can hardly
determine dishonesty from honesty
However, Ekman & O’Sullivan (1991) imply
that some people have the special ability of
detecting lies.
7. Although the researchers may disagree on the
various aspects of lying and the best means of
detecting them, it appears that they all agree that
(regardless of whether or not are judgments are
accurate) we depend on nonverbal cues as a means
of drawing a conclusion and determining truth
from fiction.
It also appears that the majority of researchers do
not feel that it is possible to detect deception via
nonverbal behaviors accurately, even with the use
of mechanical lie detectors there is always room
for inconsistencies.
8. As seen through the review of related literature
the prevailing arguments about the average
person’s ability to detect deceptions appears to
be that we are not capable of accurately
judging truths from lies, at least not anymore
capable then we are by chance (Bond, 1992, &
DePaulo, 2008).
The second prevailing argument is that even
given all of the research to support this
consensus, human beings consistently relies on
such forms of nonverbal behavioral cues.
9. When the sender deviates from social norms or
expected behaviors, we naturally become
suspicious. Such deviations aid in our decision
making as to whether or not a person is being
deceitful, but do not guarantee accuracy in our
judgments (Bond et al, 1992).
10. Due to the overwhelming evidence, I agree that
the average person is no more capable then by
chance to accurately detect lies in people they
do not know; however I postulate that our
abilities to catch a lie are enhanced when the
sender is someone we do know such as a close
friend or family member as opposed to a
complete stranger.
11. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual Differences in Judging Deception:
Accuracy and Bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477-477-492.
Bond, C.F., Kahler, K.N., & Paolicelli, L.M. (1985). The Miscommunication of Deception:
An Adaptive Perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 331-345.
Bond, C. F., Omar, A., Pitre, U., Lashley, B. R., Skaggs, L. M., & Kirk, C. T. (1992). Fishy-
Looking Liars: Deception Judgment from Expectancy Violation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63(6), 969-969-977.
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal Behavior and Self-Presentation. Psychological Bulletin,
111(2), 203-243.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.
(2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-74-118.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting Deception From the Body or Face. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 288-288-298.
Elkman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who Can Catch a Liar? American Psychologist, 46,
913-920.
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing Truthful Generalizes Across Different
Deception Situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 486-486-495.
Heilveil, I., & Muehleman, J. T. (1981). Nonverbal Clues to Deception in a Psychotherapy
Analogue. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 18(3), 329-329-335.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Chew, C. H. (1985). Behavioral Inhibition and Electrodermal
Activity During Deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1427-
1427-1433.
Notas del editor
Introducing the topic of deception and stating the major findings.
Researchers each have their own approach to studying deception. Some are interesting in individual differences in the ability to detect lies (Bond & Depaulo, 2008), others are interesting in physiological changes related to lying (Pennebaker & Chew, 1985), even still some are interested in how to appear truthful when telling lies Frank & Ekman, 2004).
Some of the findings appear to be somewhat contradicting, but we must keep in mind that each of these researchers were interested in different aspects of deception.
This is a list of the various conclusions each researcher came to based on their own studies.
Although there are many differences in opinions, there are certain aspects of deception that the majority of scholars do agree on.
Conclusion and prevailing arguments based on the literature review.
Prevailing Arguments continued….
Discussion on further research related to the topic of deception. Intuition tells us that we are likely more accurate at detecting lies from those who we have a relationship with. Future research might investigate such intuitions and if it is found to be true might investigate why.