Interpersonal Deception III. Effects of Deceit on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior...

8/12/2019 Interpersonal Deception III. Effects of Deceit on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics

1/31

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION: III. EFFECTS OFDECEIT O N PERCEIVED C O M M U N IC A T IO N A N DNONVERBAL BEHAVIOR DYNAMICSJudee K. Burgoon and David B. Buller

ABSTRACT: Much past research on deception has examined it individually andnoninteractively. Here we argue for broadening our understanding of deception byexamining it as a dyadic and interactive event. Assumptions of an interpersonalperspective, articulated in Interpersonal Deception Theory, are advanced. Theseinclude recognizing the agency of both parties to interpersonal exchanges, examin-ing such exchanges at multiple levels, incorporating measures of communication-related perceptions and interpretations as well as behaviors, recognizing that be-haviors may be strategic as well as nonstrategic, and viewing such behavior asdynamic rather than static. An experiment reflecting this orientation is presented inwhich pairs of participants, half friends and half strangers, conducted interviewsduring which interviewees (EEs) either lied or told the truth to interviewers (ERs)who were induced to be highly, moderately, or not suspicious. Dependent mea-sures included participant (EE and ER) perceptions, interpretations, and evaluationsofEEbehaviors and trained coders' ratings of actual nonverbal behaviors. Consis-tent with the theory, deceivers were more uncertain and vague, more nonimmedi-ate and reticent, showed more negative affect, displayed more arousal and non-composure, and generally made a poorer impression than truthtellers. Theirbehaviors also connoted greater formality and submissiveness. Also consistent withthe theory's premise that deceptive interactions are dynamic, deceivers' kinesicrelaxation and pleasantness changed over time, in line with a behavior and imagemanagement in terpre tation, and degree of reciproc ity between EE and ER nonver-bal behaviors was affected by the presence of deception and suspicion.

Deception is a del iberate act perpetrated by a sender to engender in areceiver beliefs contrary to what the sender believes is true to put the re-

Judee Burgoon is Professor and David Buller is Associate Professor of Communication atthe University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 , Portions of this paper were presented to theannual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, May 1989,This project was funded by the U.S, Army Research Institute (Contract #MDA903-90-


2/31

156JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

ceiver at a disadvantage. At its heart, deception is a communicative activityand, in interpersonal contexts, a dyadic one. Yet much deception researchhas implicitly taken an individualistic approach, focusing either on deceiver(sender) behavior or detector (receiver) judgments rather than on the decep-tive transaction itself. This is evident in the rarity, until recently, of researchpermitting deceivers to interact with those responsible for judging their decep-tion (Burgoon, 1989; Toris & DePaulo, 1985). Common research paradigmshave included deceivers posing deception while an observer watches, impli-cating senders in an unethical act then recording their behavior when con-fronted,or asking senders to encode truthful and deceptive behavior on vid-eotape for later viewing, listening, or reading by observers. Even in caseswhere sender and receiver have interacted, receivers have often been limitedto reading a standard protocol of interview questions and deceivers have of-ten been restricted to one or two word replies (e.g.,Buller, Comstock, Aune,& Strzyzewski, 1989; Buller, Strzyzewski, & Hunsaker, 1991; O 'Hair, Cody,& McLaughlin, 1981;O 'Hair, Cody, Wang, & Chao, 1990; Toris & DePaulo,1985;Vrij & W inkel, 1991 ; Weiler & W einstein, 1972).

Whether findings from these kinds of studies can be generalized to thecommon communication circumstance where senders and receivers areboth participants and engage in extended and extemporaneous interactionsis questionable (Knapp, Cody, & Reardon, 1987). True interpersonal (face-to-face, interactive) deception invokes numerous considerations and de-mands not present when deception is noninterpersonal or entails highlyconstrained interaction. For exam ple, situations that do not obligate theliar to attend to an interviewer's presence may enable him or her to bettereffect contro l over some behaviors (Knapp et a l. , 198 7, p. 393). Becausewe believe that a dyadic and interactive perspective will extend our under-standing of deceptive and honest behavior in important ways, we havebegun to develop and test Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT). IDT em-phasizes communication factors as proximal causes of behavior and at-tempts to predict and explain the interactive dynamics of deception. Build-ing upon distinctions proposed by Buller and Burgoon (1994; Burgoon,1989, 1992) and previous experiments by Buller and colleagues (Buller &Aune, 1987; Buller et al., 1989; Buller, Strzyzewski, & Comstock, 1991;Buller, Strzyzewski, & Hunsaker, 1991), the current experiment addressestwo facets of IDT: a strategic/nonstrategic distinction in deception displays


3/31

157JUDEE K. BURCOON, DAVID B. BULLER

goon, Buslig, & Roiger, 1993; Burgoon, 1989, 1992). Here we present acursory summary of those most relevant to the current investigation.Beyond the obvious minimum requirement that deception be exam-ined in contexts where sender and receiver actually communicate w ith oneanother, an interpersonal communication perspective requires expandingthe locus of attention beyond individual and internal psychological pro-cesses such as goals, motivations, and cognitive abilities to dyadic andovert behavior patterns. Psychological variables are presumed to be neces-sary but not sufficient to predict and explain the topography and success orfailure of deceptive encounters.Second, an interpersonal perspective requires recognizing the agencyofbothparties in shaping the interchange. Most investigations of deceptionhave implicitly embraced a unidirectional view such that a liar activelytransmits signals which a receiver passively absorbs. Yet a cardinal princi-ple of interpersonal communication is that it is a transactional process in-volving feedback and mutual influence (see, e.g., McCroskey, Larson, &Knapp, 1971). As a consequence, the character of deceit may change fun -damentally when deceivers and receivers are engaged in ongoing conver-sation and deceivers must continually monitor their own performancewhile adapting to receivers' feedback. On this view, interpersonal decep-tion might be better conceptualized as a game of moves and countermovesby deceiver and deceived.

Third, the game metaphor implies strategic behavior. An interpersonalperspective need not embrace the assumption that all behavior is mindful,deliberate, and willfulindeed, much of it is notbut it encourages dis-tinguishing strategic from nonstrategic activity, something that may not beessential in noninteractive situations, where only some classes of behaviorare evident. Past research has largely focused on more reactive, involun-tary, and psychological aspects of deceptive communication (see Zucker-man, DePaulo, & Rosenthal's [1981] four-factor theory), to the neglect ofthe more active, voluntary, and functionally oriented features.Fourth, an interpersonal perspective requires conceptualizing decep-tive communication as m ul ti : multifunctional, multidimen sional, m ulti-modal, and multivariate. Interpersonal communication involves numerous

functions or goals that may be operative simultaneously (see, e.g., Argyle,1972;Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989; Burgoon & Saine, 1978; Ekman


4/31

15 8JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

kinds of images people project for a general audience and the images ormessages tailored to specific partners that have implications for defin ingthe interpersonal relationship along such dimensions as trust, receptivity,and involvement. Emotion or affect management concerns how peopleregulate emotional experiences and expressions, including the appropriaterevelation or suppression of emotional displays in social contexts. Conver-sation management concerns how interactants regulate conversational ac-tivities such as topic initiation and turn-taking.These communication functions are themselves multifaceted. Rela-tional communication, for example, is multidimensional (Burgoon & Hale,1984), and functions are accomplished through a system of kinesic, vo-calic, proxemic, and verbal modes of communication, each comprised ofnumerous cues. Because deceit and its detection occur within a web ofmultiple interpersonal objectives and meanings, the nonverbal and verbalcombinations can vary substantially and may include many elements thatare ancillary to the deception or detection display and should not be con-fused with them. At the same time, duplicitous behavior may diffuse into

other functions , leading, for example, a receiver to read a liar's w ithdrawa las a message of dominance or disinterest.Fifth, interpersonal often implies fam iliarity. Much deception occursamong people who are acquainted, for whom perceptions and behavioralpatterns may differ substantially from those of strangers. Yet most decep-tion research has employed deceivers and detectors who are strangers toone another and therefore may not be relevant to ordinary deceptive en-counters.Sixth, an interpersonal perspective requires conceptualizing and an-alyzing deception as a dynamic, evolving process. If a receiver's aware-ness of partner's possible duplicity {a.k.a.suspicion) sets up a chain reac-tion of offensive and defensive maneuvers by both, then behavioralpatterns evidenced at the outset of an exchange may differ radically fromthose manifested later. Behavioral modifications in the face of disbelief orskepticism may ensnare not just deceivers but also truthtellers and be asmuch a product of receiver intentions as sender motivations.Seventh, perceptions and interpretations acquire a central role in an

interpersonal perspective. The perception of deceit, as well as actual de-ceit, may initiate emotional, cognitive, and behavioral changes. In like


5/31

15 9JUDEE K. BURGOON, DAVID B. BULLER

periment to be reported here, which tests IDT-generated hypotheses thatare germane to deceiver communication. The experiment exemplifies aninterpersonal perspective in that it (1) examines deception during actualinteraction , (2) takes a functional approach, (3) analyzes classes of strategicand nonstrategic behavior, (4) investigates those behaviors in the context ofan active, sometimes skeptical and sometimes acquainted receiver, (5)looks at dynamic behavior changes following the onset of deception, and(6) includes perceptual and interpretive measures as well as actual behavior.

Deception Hypotheses from interpersonal Deception TheoryStrategic andNonstrategic Communication

The concept of strategic communication is grounded in the func-tionality of communication: Communicators' plans and intentions aretranslated into large behavioral routines (strategies) comprised of specificactions (tactics) (Berger, in press; Kellermann, 1992; Palmer & Simmons,1993). One of the most fundamental objectives of message senders, bethey truthful or deceitful, is to create messages that are believable. Re-ceivers likewise expect honesty from others (Grice, 1989), use sourceethos or credibility as one of the elemental bases for judging messages(McCroskey, 1972), and are sensitive to departures from expected com mu-nication patterns (Bond et al., 1992; Burgoon, 1993; Knapp, Hart, & Den-nis, 1974). Thus, one func tion of deception is impression managementtoprotect one's image through skillful peH^ormance (e.g., Burgoon & Saine,1978; DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985; Goffman, 1959; Kraut, 1978;Kraut & Poe, 1980; Miller & Burgoon, 1982; Weiler & Weinstein, 1972).And, just as truthtellers in face-to-face interaction monitor themselves andpartner feedback to gauge the success of their presentation, so should de-ceivers. Any perceived threat to a performance's success should heightenself-monitoring, partner-surveillance, and efforts to bolster credibility(Buller, Strzyzewski, & Comstock, 1991).

At the same time that deceivers are attempting to put their best faceforward, they may also be attempting to send relational messages signal-ing sincerity, trustworthiness, positive affect, and involvement while simul-taneously suppressing signs of negative arousal, adroitly switching turns


6/31


ceiver behaviors are likely to be deliberate and instrumental, other behav-iors may be inadvertent, leaking clues to deception in the form of negativeaffect, heightened arousal, or impaired communicative performance.In an effort to identify broad classes of strategic and nonstrategic be-havior, Buller and Burgoon (1994) proffered a seven-category typology forgrouping deception-related tactics that draws partly upon the earlier workof Knapp et al. (1974) and DePaulo et al. (1985). The four strategic cate-gories ofvagueness/uncertainty, withdrawal/reticence/nonimmediacy, disassociation,and image-protecting behaviorscan be further reduced to in-formation management, behavior management, and defensive maneuvers.At the information management level, deceivers may inten tionally use ver-bal and nonverbal means to introduce hesitancy, equivocation, and mixedmessages to ambiguate the information being supplied and to distancethemselves from what is being said. Bavelas, Black, Chovil, and Mullett(1990) contended that equivocation is a common deceptive strategy be-cause, as a ha lf-tru th, it permits the deceiver to escape telling an un-pleasant truth while avoiding the guilt, arousal, and possible detectabilityof complete fabrica tion. At the behavior management level, deceivers mayattempt to disengage from the conversation, reduce involvement in theinteraction, or become more taciturn so as to control the amount of infor-mation that is transmitted to the receiver and preempt inquiry by the part-ner. Finally, as a defensive maneuver, deceivers may attempt to maintain apoised and friendly demeanor that allays suspicion.

The nonstrategic categories include the more commonly identifiedfeatures of deceptive displayswhat Ekman and Friesen (1969a) called leakage and what Zuckerman and colleagues (Zuckerman et a l. , 1 98 1 ;Zuckerman & Driver, 1985) associated with increased arousal, negativeaffect, attempted control, and cognitive demands. The specific categoriesin the Buller-Burgoon typology arearousal andnervousnesscues, negativaffectcues,and incompetent comm unication performances (the latter en-compassing performance decrements due to overcontrol and cognitiveload). Moreover, the combined behavioral management strategies andnonstrategic leakage behaviors together should have the effect of reducingconversational involvement. Low conversational involvement is expressedthrough nonimmediacy, inexpressiveness and suppression of physical ac-tivity, self-focus, awkward and nonfluent interaction management, and


7/31

161JUDEE K. BURGOON, DAVID B. BULLER

abundant in the noninteractive literature (see, e.g.. Miller & Burgoon,1982; Zuckerman & Driver, 1985, for summaries). Several studies havedemonstrated that honest senders use different verbal strategies to enhancetheir credibility than do dishonest ones (Weiler & Weinstein, 1972), thatdeceivers show reduced expressiveness and behavioral restraint (DePaulo& Kirkendol, 1989; Ekman, 1988; McClintock & Hunt, 1975; Vrij &Winkel , 1991), and that absence of a friendly, attentive demeanor con-notes dishonesty (O'Hair, Cody, Goss, & Krayer, 1988). Other researchhas confirmed that several arousal-related behaviors are present during de-ception and these can be distinguished from arousal during tru thtelling (de-Turck & Miller, 1985; Vrij & Winkel, 1991). Among the frequently ob-served deceptive displays are increased adaptor behaviors, raised pitch,and tense vocal cues that signal heightened arousal or anxiety; micromo-mentary unpleasant facial expressions, unpleasant voices, and head shak-ing that reveal underlying negative feelings, possibly due to guilt aboutdeceiving or fear of being detected; and nonfluencies, lack of self-syn-chrony, channel discrepancies, and incongruent or excessive responsesthat may reflect cognitive difficulties associated with producing deception(see Buller & Burgoon, 1994; Knappe ta l . , 1987; Miller & Burgoon, 1982;Zuckerman & Driver, 1985).

However, little of the research has been conducted in truly interactivecontexts. Consequently, while previous research has identified various fa-cial or vocal features that are implicated in deceptive displays, we do notknow how these prototypical expressions are masked, exaggerated, orblended in actual interchanges. Frozen instances of deception may be dis-tant cousins to deception in normal discourse, and strategic attempts topromote a favorable image may offset the leakage cues. Buller and Aune(1987) first tested this possibility in a study comparing deception displaysacross relationship types. Although deceivers did exhibit nonimmediacy,arousal, and negative affect, as expected, and although they better con-trolled their behavior when interacting with familiar others than withstrangers, a finding suggestive of strategic behavioral control, they failed toexh ibit the predicted positive, image-enhancing behaviors. A second inter-active experiment employing probing questions (Buller et al., 1989) foundmore behaviors suggestive of information and behavior management bydeceivers, including greater reticence, fewer interruptions, and, when


8/31


ness, (d)nervousness, e) negativeaffect, and (f) communication incom ptence {H]).If one assumes that receivers are not passive bystanders but insteadactive message-processors who are attuned to message credibility, an im-portant question arises: Is the above deception profile altered in the face ofsuspicion? Weiler and Weinstein (1972) proposed that suspiciousness onthe part of an interviewer would cause both honest and dishonest inter-viewees to engage in the same credibility-enhancing maneuvers. But theyfound that honest interviewees used more credibility-enhancing strategies

when the interviewer was supportive whereas deceivers increased suchstrategies when the interviewer was suspicious. Buller, Strzyzewski, andComstock (1991) speculated that deceivers scrutinize partners for evidencethat partners are oblivious to their dissembling and, if they suspect other-wise, step up their behavior management to minimize arousal leakagewhile simultaneously becom ing more involved, pleasant, and expressive toappear credible. But are deceivers actually able to make these adjustmentssuccessfully without also impairing their communication performance?Buller et al.'s (1991) actual findings were mixed, but included many indic-ative of lack of success. Other research on planned versus spontaneouslying (e.g., O 'Hair et al ., 1 98 1 ; O'H air et al ., 1990) and on m otivatedlying (e.g., DePaulo, Kirkendol, Tang, & O'Brien, 1988; DePaulo, Lanier,& Davis, 1983; Zuckerman & Driver, 1985) has shown that conscious in-formation and behavior management may actually impair performance,leading deceivers to appear stiff, unnatural, anxious, and unsuccessful. Inlight of conflicting speculations and empirical evidence, a research ques-tion was advanced: Does the presence of suspicion minimize orexacer-bate deception displays(RQl)?TheD ynamics of Deception

A second feature of IDT to be addressed here is the dynamic nature ofdeceptive encounters. As an interpersonal communication event, decep-tion should exhibit the same dynamic properties as other interpersonal in-teractions. Moreover, the contention that deceivers engage in informationmanagement, behavior management, and defensive maneuvers impliesthat behavior will change as deceivers monitor and adjust their perfor-


9/31


diacy); and yet others remained unchanged relative to the dynamic behav-ior of truthtellers (e.g.,brief face and head adaptors). The two later experi-ments showed that these dynamic changes were affected by probing andsuspicion. For example, deceivers increased gazing and sustained morefacial animation than truthtellers when probed, possibly in an attempt toappear more credible, and both truthful and deceptive communicators be-came more guarded and inexpressive when confronted by probing or sus-picion (Buller et al., 1989; Buller, Strzyzewski, & Comstock, 1991). Thus,we hypothesized thatdeception displays change over time towardgreaterbehaviormanagementand image protection (H2).Related to the contention that behavior during interactive deception isdynam ic is the extent to whic h one person's behavioral changes influenceor are influenced by the partner's as an interaction unfolds. The interperso-nal interaction literature has documented that mutual influence is com-mon, sometimes producing matching (reciprocal) behavior patterns andsometimes producing opposite (compensatory) ones (see, e.g., Andersen,1985; Cappella, 1985; Hale & Burgoon, 1984). One possibility is that de-ceivers, when confronted by intensive questioning by another, may com-pensate by becoming withdrawn, nonimmediate, and submissive. Previousliterature has often depicted deception as fitting this profile; it seems plaus-ible that such a response pattern would become more pronounced if de-ceivers were confronted by an assertive, suspicious receiver. On the otherhand, growing evidence suggests that people entrain automatically andsubconsciously to the behavior of others and that reciprocity is the prevail-ing pattern (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991; Burgoon, Dillman, Stern, & Kel-ley, 1992; Burgoon, Le Poire, & Rosenthal, 1992). If this holds true indeceptive interactions, then deceivers might actually match the interactionstyle used by their questioners or vice versa. One person's immediacy orarousal might evoke a similar pattern from the other. If these reciprocalpatterns were to obtain, it would complicate the picture of deception inthat a deceiver's behavioral displays might be under the control of thepartner as well as the act of deception. Consequently, a second researchquestion addressed the extent to which interactants exhibit reciprocal orcompensatory interactionpatternsduring deception(RQ2).


10/31


same-sex and 32 opposite-sex pairings among strangers, and 43 same-sexand 20 opposite-sex pairings among friends. By role, 40% of intervieweesand 39% of interviewers were male.

Procedureand IndependentVariablesThe procedures, which were partially adapted from those used byToris and DePaulo (1985) and Buller and Aune (1987), were designed to

produce extended, extemporized discourse from strangers and friends alikeand to create plausible deception and suspicion manipulations. Becauseimpression management is operative in both familiar and unfamiliar rela-tionships, the experiment was introduced as examining how people repre-sent themselves to strangers or familiar others when expressing personalbeliefs. An interview format was selected to produce comparability acrosspairs in topics covered and in interviewer verbal behavior. To encouragesome free encoding, interviewers were instructed to ask interviewees forexplanations o f their answers and interviewees, to give them.Participants were randomly assigned to interviewee (EE) or interviewer(ER) roles and to experimental conditions. EEs completed a questionnairecovering the items to be asked in the upcoming interview. The question-naire consisted of 16 statements, modeled after social desirability and Ma-chiavellianism scales, to which respondents answered true or false (e.g., 1would never think of letting someone else be blamed for my wrongdo-ings, I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only gotwhat they deserved ). Meantime, ERs reviewed the same items, reworded

as the questions to be asked during the interview.Next, EEs received the deception induction while ERs received thesuspicion induction. Half the EEs received the following deception induc-tion shown in the first part of each bracketed statement below; the otherhalf received instructions to be truthful (the second part of the bracketedstatements):Some people, when answering these kinds of questions in actual con-versation,tend to misrepresent their true feelingsandactions. We wantto determine if conversational partners [can detect such lies/recognizetruthful answersj. Therefore, we would like you to [lie as convincingly


11/31


ior against which to compare later behavior should they detect changes,and created a c lear juncture for in t roducing the suspic ion manipulat ion.ERs we re ran do m ly assigned to a no , mod erate, or high sus picion c o n -

d i t i on . Those in the two suspic ion condi t ions were to ld that people aresometimes less candid and truthful when answering questions face-to-facethan when complet ing anonymous quest ionnaires. In the moderate suspi-c ion condi t ion, the assistant added:

We w ill be follow ing along your partner's questionnaire as you ask thequestions. Because we are interested in how accurately people repre-sent themselves to others, if I have reason to believe that your partneris not giving you straight answers, I wi ll signal you by wa lking through[the room adjacent to the interview room). . . . I wo uld like you toprobe his/her answers in more detail to see if you can determine if he/she is telling the truth.

In the high susp icion co nd it io n , ERs w ere told that i f peo ple l ie on on equestion, they are l ikely to l ie on another, and that the walk-through signalwould indicate that the partner had l ied on one of the questions. To furtherstress the l ike l ihood of decei t , the wording of the probing instruct ion waschanged to read, determ ine i f he/she is ly ing on the rema ining quest ions.In the no suspicion condit ion, these statements were omitted. Al l ERs werethen to ld that at the end of the interv iew, they would complete wr i t tenevaluat ions of their par tner 's re laxat ion, openness, involvement, and can-dor. This statement was designed to equalize ERs' init ial attentiveness tothe i r par tner ' s communicat ion .

Interv iews were conducted in a room resembl ing a l iv ing roomequ ipped wi th swive l chairs and a one -way mir ror through w hi ch interac-t ions were videotaped with part icipants' consent. After quest ion f ive, assis-tants walked through the adjacent room, made eye contact wi th the ER,who was facing toward that room, and retreated. The interv iews cont inuedfor f ive m inute s, after w h ic h EEs and ERs w ere separated to co m ple te theirrespective dependent measures and to be debriefed.

Dependent MeasuresTo measure perceived verbal and nonverbal co m m un ica t ion , ERs and


12/31


adaptor use, nervousness, and manipulativeness. Due to concerns for re-spondent fatigue and the importance of also measuring interpretations as-sociated with communicative behavior, the behaviors chosen were neces-sarily a selective sample of possible cues. The expectedness and evaluationstatements, which were interspersed among these, were taken from Bur-goon and Walther (1990).^ (Less successful performances were assumed tobe those evaluated negatively and seen as atypical.) Interpretations weremeasured with 25 statements from Burgoon and Hale's (1984, 1987) Rela-tional Communication Scale. This factor-based instrument, which taps fun-damental interpretive dimensions along which people judge interpersonalcommunication and relationships, has been used elsewhere to assessmeanings assigned to nonverbal and verbal behavior (see, e.g., Burgoon,1991; Burgoon & Newton, 1991; Newton & Burgoon, 1990). Item word-ings express what messages the partner was perceived to have sent to therespondent (e.g., M y partner created a sense of closeness between us,My partner didn't care what thought, My partner appeared to be ner-vous talking with me ).

To minimize multicollinearity in the data analyses and reduce themeasures to a parsimonious subset, items were grouped according to theirfunctional relatedness (e.g., arousal) and subjected to reliability analysis(factor analysis being precluded by the sample size). The resultant com-munication behavior composites and their respective Cronbach alpha re-liabilities on the ER questionnaire were: vagueness/uncertainty (evasive,ambiguous, inconsistent answers; long response latencies), .57; nervous-ness (fidgety and uncom fortable, object adaptor behaviors), . 7 1 ; evalua-t ion, . 8 1 ; and expectedness, .49. Measured as single items because oftheir conceptual distinctness or weak correlations with other items weregaze avoidance, brevity of answers, negative affect (pleasantness), and im-pression made. O n the EE questionnaire, tw o composites were form ed:own vagueness/uncertainty, .65; and own nervousness, .80. Measured assingle items were gaze avoidance, brevity, and perceived impressionmade.^The vagueness/uncertainty measure represents strategic informationmanagement. Gaze avoidance is one aspect of im mediacy, a form of stra-tegic behavior management. Nervousness (an arousal indicator), negativeaffect, expectedness, evaluation, and impression made are all non -strategic measures related to poor communication performance. Rela-


13/31


Nonverbal CodingSubsequently, trained coders (N = 12) rated the EEs and ERs on sev-eral nonverbal kinesic, proxemic, and vocalic behaviors commonly impli-cated in the deception literature as strategic behaviors or leakage cues(Buller, 1988; Burgoon & Buller, 1994; Zuckerman & Driver, 1985). Twoteams of three coders who observed the video-only portion of the video-taped interviews rated EEs or ERs on 14 kinesic and proxemic behaviorsand associated perceptions on 7-interval scales (usually bounded by notat a ll and very ). The remaining two teams listened to the audio portionof the videotapes and ratedEEsor ERs on 14 voca lic behaviors and percep-tions.The measures were combined into composite categories on the basisof conceptual and empirical relatedness in previous studies (see, e.g.,Coker & Burgoon, 1987) and reliability analysis. The kinesic/proxemic cat-egories retained for interpersonal deception analysis here and their respec-tive interitem (coefficient alpha) and interrater (Ebel's intraclass) reliabilitieswere: immediacy (physical closeness, amount of gaze, directness of fac-ing, amount of forward lean), .64, .74;kinesicpleasantness (frequency ofsmiling and facial pleasantness), .94, .73;kinesic activation (frequency ofself-adaptors, object-adaptors, random movement, and rocking and twist-ing), .57, .69; andkinesic relaxation(a global perceptual measure employ-ing the attributes relaxed, calm, anxious, and tense), .86, .40. The oneretained vocalic category wasvocalpleasantness (rhythmic, pleasant, flat,friend ly, warm), .89, .64. A ll nonverbal coders underwent discussions ofbehavioral definitions and extensive training using practice videotapes.

All coding occurred after the onset of deception and suspicion, whichbegan after question five. Observations of the interactions confirmed thatall interviews had completed the first five questions in the first 1-1/2 min-utes. Coding therefore was completed on two 1-minute observations be-ginning at -1/2 and 3-1/2 minutes for each interaction. Coders were blindto the experimental conditions and purposes of the experiment.

Manipulation ChecksThree checks were made on the deceit manipulation. EEs rated theirenacted deceit on two items embedded in the EE questionnaire ( I was


14/31


15/31


nonimmediacy and reticence, (b) greater vagueness and uncertainty, (c)more nervousness and tension, (d) more negative affect, and (e) less com-petent communication performances than truthtellers. Research Question 1raised the possibility of moderating effects due to suspicion. To addressthese issues, analyses examined as dependent variables: (1) ER ratings ofEEs' nonverbal and verbal behavior, (2) EEs' ratings of own nonverbal andverbal behavior, (3) evaluation and expectedness ratings of EE behavior(rated by ER), (4) relational message interpretations attributed to EE behav-ior (as rated by ER), and (5) coders' ratings of EEnonverbal behavior.A M ANOVA on ER ratings of EE nonverbal/verbal behavior produceda main effect for deception, W ilks ' A = .90, F(5, 103) = 2 .31 ,p = .049,w ith significant un ivariate effects on gaze avoidance, F (1, 107) = 9.43, p= .003 , -n^ = .08 ; poor impression, F(1 , 107) = 4.5 7 , p = .035 , i]^ =.04; and nervousness, f ( 1 , 107) = 3.62, p = .06 (.03 one-tailed), i i ^ =.04. There was also a near-significant Suspicion x Deception x Relation-ship interaction, W ilks ' A = .85 , approx. F(10, 206) = 1 .71 , p = .080,w ith significant univariate effects on vagueness/uncertainty, F(2, 107) =4.35, p = .015 , Ti = .08 , and nervousness F(2, 107) = 3.17 , p = .046,T) = .06 . A separate AN OVA conducted on brevity due to its low correla-tion with the other measures also produced a significant main effect fordeception, F ( l, 106) = 5 .66, p = .010, ti^ = .05 . The means, shown inTables 1 and 2, indicated that compared to truthtellers, deceivers wereseen by ERs as avoiding gaze, giving briefer answers, being more nervous(especially when lying to strangers), and creating a poorer impression.Vagueness depended upon the relationship and degree of suspicion:Strangers were seen as least vague when tel ling the tru th under high suspi-

cion;friends were seen as least vague when lying under high suspicion butmost vague when lying under moderate suspicion.A MANOVA on EEs' self-reported communication behavior produceda main effect for deception, W ilks ' A = .56 , F(5, 101) = 15 .95, p


16/31


TABLE 1M ain Effect Mean s for De cep tion Effects on Interview ee EE) No nve rbal/

Verbal Behavior, Evaluation and Expectedness of EE Behavior, andRelational Message Interpretations Attributed to EE Behavior

VariableEE nonverbal/verbal behavior reported

by ERVagueness/uncertaintyBrevityGaze avoidanceNegative affectNervousnessPoor impressionEE nonverbal/verbal behavior reportedby selfVagueness/uncertaintyBrevityGaze avoidanceNervousnessPoor impressionEvaluation and expectedness of EEbehavior reported by EREvaluationExpectednessRelational messages attributed to EEbehavior by ERAffectionImmediacyComposureInformalityReceptivity/trustDominance

p < .05

Deception

2.905.593.172.893.372.71

3.795.663.023.374.12

5.505.204.414.724.625.004.792.53

Truth

2.674.86*2.22*2.642 .81*2.27*

2.30*4.31*2.532.69*3.19*

5.96*5.364.89*5.31*5.04*5.42*5.32*3.06*


17/31


TABLE 2Ce ll Means fo r Inte raction Effects on EE No nve rbalA/erb al Behavior

Reported by ER

Variable andconditionVaguenessDeceptionTruthNervousnessDeceptionTruth

Nosuspicion

2.622.582.752.90

StrangersModeratesuspicion

3.083.253.253.20

Highsuspicion

3.052.284.702.56

Nosuspicion

3.062.694.042.83

FriendsModeratesuspicion

3.482.453.152.95

Highsuspicion

2.022.703.153.50

for five intercorrelated dimensions (average r = .45 , range = .24 to .64)and a separate ANOVA on dominance (due to its to weak correlations withother dimensions, range of r = - . 0 9 to .15 ). The MAN OV A produced amain effect for deception, W ilks' A = .89 , f(5 , 110) = 2.69, p = .025 ,with significant univariate effects for all five dimensions: affection, F(l,114) = 6.52 , p = .012 , Ti = .06 ; immediacy, F(1, 114) = 9.22 , p =.003,Tf) = .07 ; com posure,F(1, 114) = 3.00, p = .043 one-tailed, ti ^ =.03; formality, F(1, 114) = 5.94, p = .016 , i\ = .05 ; and receptivity/trust, F(1 , 114) = 9.08 , p = .003,T\ = .07 . Dominance also produced amain effect for deception, F(1 , 108) = 10.98 , p = .0 01 , ti ^ = .09. Themeans (Table 1) revealed that deceptive EEs were seen as less affectionate,immediate, composed, receptive/trustworthy, informal, and dominant thantruthful EEs.

To determine if degree of deceit also influenced communication pat-terns, a supplementary analysis was conducted correlating EEs' reporteddeceit (the manipulation check measure) with ali the above communica-tion measures. The results, shown in Table 3, show that the more EEsreported being deceptive, the more they were seen as being vague/uncer-tain, nervous, unpleasant, avoiding gaze, behaving unexpectedly, making


18/31


TABLE 3Correlations between Interviewee EE) Reported Deceit andEE NonverbalA^erbal Communication Behaviors, Expectedness, andEvaluation of EE Behavior, and Relational Message InterpretationsAttributed to EE Behavior

EE nonverbal/verbal behaviorVagueness/uncertaintyBrevityGase avoidanceNegative affectNervousnessPoor impressionEE nonverbal/verbal behaviorVagueness/uncertaintyBrevityGaze avoidanceNervousnessPoor impressionEvaluation and expectednessreported by EREvaluationExpectednessRelational messages attributedImmediacyAffectionDominanceComposureInformalityReceptivity/trust

*p


19/31


TABLE 4Means for Coded Nonv erbal Behavior as a Function of D ece ption ,

Role, and Time

Var iab le and t imeKinesic relaxation

T ime 1T ime 2AverageKinesic pleasantnessT ime 1T ime 2Average

IntervieweeDecept ion

4 .484 .754 .624 .364 . 5 74 .47

(EE)Truth

4 . 7 04 . 7 94 .754 .684 .694 .68

InterviewerDecept ion

4 .975 .065 .024 . 5 94 .684 .64

(ER)Truth

5 .025 . 1 85 .104 .674 . 7 64 . 7 2

De cept ion in teract ion on k ines ic pleasantness, f ( 1 , 88) = 5 .1 8 , p = .02 5 ,ti^ = .0 6, show ed a pattern paral lel to that for kinesic rela xa tion . EE de -ceivers were init ial ly less pleasant kinesical ly than truthtel lers, as pre-d ic ted , and over t ime, they showed the greatest increase in pleasantnessrelat ive to truthfu l EEs and to ERs. Sus picion d id not m ode rate de ce ptio neffects ( i .e . , there were no suspic ion by decept ion interact ions).

Ov e ra l l , the analyses con f i rme d Hy poth es is ,1 . The behav iora l prof i leof deceivers was one of greater nonimmediacy and ret icence, vaguenessand uncertainty, arousal and nervousness, negat ive af fect , and communi-cation incompetence relat ive to truthtel lers. In answer to the researchquest ion, only vagueness and nervousness were moderated by suspic ion(and relat ional fami l iar i ty) . Thus, decept ion largely produced main ef fectsand few interact ions.

Hypothesis 2 and R esearch Question 2Hypothesis 2 predicted that nonverbal behaviors dur ing decept ive en-


20/31


TABLE5Means for Coded Nonverbal Behavior as a Function of Relationship,Role,andTime

Variable andt imeKinesic relaxation

Time 1Time2AverageProximityTime 1Time 2AverageFacingTime1Time 2AverageGazeTime1Time 2AverageLeanTime1Time2Average

intervieweeStranger

4.424 .564.493.112.963.044.745.064.905.335.635.482.121.962.04

(EE)Friend

4.594.644.623.423.413.425.234.965.105.355.615.481.931.811.87

InterviewerStranger

4.294.374.333.353.313.334.514.774.644.725.074.902.252.202.23

(ER)Friend

4.664.944.803.703.733.724.524.614.574.614.914 .761.952.072.01

Role X Time interaction, F(^, 88) = 5 .1 5 , p = .02 6 ,j] = .06 , alsorevealed that a l l interactants became more pleasant over time, bu t it wa sespecially thecase for ERs interacting with friends.Apart from thedeception -related tim e effects, other nonverbal behav-iors that showed changes over time were vocal pleasantness and imme-


21/31


22/31


23/31


gagement as by the presence of various leakage cues, and if strategic infor-mation and behavior management results in suppressed involvement, it islikely to backfire.Interaction Dynamics

At the same time, consistent with Hypothesis 2, deceivers did manageto improve their kinesic performance by becoming more relaxed andpleasant as the conversations progressed over time, an indication thatsome strategic adjustments were being made. Pleasantness may be a com-mon way that communicators attempt to allay or avoid suspicion and isconsistent with our contention that a major strategy in deceptive encoun-ters is forwarding a positive image. Yet, consistent with findings from ear-lier studies (Buller & Aune, 1987; Buller, Strzyzewski, & Comstock, 1991),such masking was not completely successful in that deceivers earned poorevaluations from their partners despite these changes. Perhaps had moretime been permitted, they could have improved their performance suffi-ciently to approximate a normal interaction style and so allay their re-ceivers' suspicions. This experiment was limited in looking at only twotime periods from a fairly brief interaction. We might expect that givenenough time and feedback from partners, many deceivers could suc-cessfully mask some of the kinesic deception cues. Whether they could doso with vocal cues is less clear, inasmuch as there was less vocal impair-ment present in the first place. Determining the ability of deceivers to im-prove their performances over lengthier interactions would be a fruitfuldirection for future research, as would be testing channel differences toclarify which ones are leakiest during a normal interaction. The fact thatseveral other nonverbal behaviors also changed over time does support ourcontention that interpersonal exchanges are dynamic and underscores theneed to assess the dynamics of nonverbal interaction so that deceptivebehaviors and behavioral changes can be interpreted properly within inter-active contexts.

Underlying the proposition of dynamic changes is the presumptionthat the changes are partly motivated by partner behavioral adjustmentsand feedback, i.e., interactants are mutually influencing each other. Aunique aspect of this investigation was analysis of these adaptation patterns


24/31


25/31

17 9JUDEE K. BURGOON, DAVID B. BULLER

The reader should be alerted, however, that the analyses of suspicioneffects on ER behavior (see Burgoon et al., 1993) were not as consistentand, in fact, produced opposite patterns on immediacy. Thus, it seemsunwise to rely solely on participants' reports, especially if one considersthat they may be distorted by stereotypical assumptions about deception.For example, deceivers may believe their deception is more transparentand leaky than it actually is and consequently self-report poor perfor-mances. Suspicious receivers may also expect deceivers to be vague andnonimmediate and thus perceive sender behavior that way, regardless ofhow senders actually behaved. This problem of inaccuracy due to relianceon stereotypical cues might be especially exacerbated if the deceptionwere obvious. Unfortunately, this issue cannot be addressed with the cur-rent research because we did not collect accuracy measures, and withgood reason. Half the ERs were alerted in advance that their partners mightbe lying. This created unequal sensitization to the prospect of partner de-ceit. Future investigations examining the accuracy question, however,might be well-advised to consider the possibility of stereotypic judgments.Under these circumstances, triangulation with observational data seemsprudent.

Moreover, observational data are a necessity for detecting fluctuationsover time. In the current investigation, several behaviors changed over thetwo time periods and some behaviors produced deception by time interac-tions, indicating that the influence of deception did not remain static overthe course of the interaction. Under these circumstances, it is unclearwhether post-interaction participant reports would reflect the initial behav-ior, the most recent behavior, or some perceptual average. Additionally,studies of mutual influence patterns over time require multiple measure-ments of behavior. Thus, interactive designs appear to neccessitate inclu-sion of behavioral measures to tap interaction dynamics.

ConclusionThese preliminary results beg for further studies employing yet additionalmeasures, especially verbal ones, and more extended interactions withmultiple time measurements. The interplay between verbal and nonverbal


26/31

180lOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

different relationships than previously found in noninteractive contexts.The continued merger of deception principles and interpersonal communi-cation principles may open new frontiers in our understanding of decep-tion and of interpersonal communication.

ot s1. Friends were defined as someone w ith w hom they were well-acquainted but who was not

their best friend or romantic partner. Relational familiarity was included as a factor todetermine if it would moderate deception and suspicion displays. Because the resultsproduced primarily main effects, they have been omitted and are available from the firstauthor; any relevant interactions are noted in the results.2. The fol low ing Likert statements on the ER questionnaire measured ER's perceptions ofspecific EE verbal and nonverba l behaviors , the expectedness of EE's behav ior, and ho wdesirable or undesirable ER evaluated EE's behavior:

Verbal/Nonverbal BehaviorsMy partner gave very brief answers.My partner gave evasive and ambiguous answers to my questions.My partner took a long time before responding to my questions.My partner avoided looking me in the eye while answering.My partner appeared fidgety and uncomfortable.My partner fiddled with his/her clothes or objects.My partner was very pleasant during the discussion.My partner's answers were wishy-washy.My partner's answers were consistent.My partner made a good impression on me.ExpectednessMy partner's behavior was unusual.My partner behaved the way I expect most people to behave.My partner engaged in normal conversational behavior.EvaluationMy partner's behavior was undesirable.I found my partner's manner of communicating very unpleasant.My partner's behavior was appropriate.I liked the way my partner interacted with me.I was bothered by my partner's communication style.EE self-ratingswere as follows:I gave evasive and ambiguous answers to the questions.I took a long time before responding to the questions.I was wishy-washy in my answers to my partner.My answers to my partner's questions were consistent.I felt relaxed and at ease while interacting with my partner.I was very tense while talking to me partner.I avoided looking my partner in the eye while answering.


27/31

181JUDEE K, BURGOON, DAVID B, BULLER

contribute to Type II error. This possible attenuation of findings is offset by the benefit ofpotentially detecting relevant distinctions among relational messages and between com-munication evaluation and its expectedness. As the results w ill demonstrate, even the lessreliably measured dimensions frequently produced significant findings, revealing differ-ences that would have been masked if these measures had been dropped or aggregatedwith others.Ad ditiona l measures not reported here wereconversation management(length o f responselatencies, smoothness of turn switches), .72, ,45; fluency (fluency, amount of nervousvocalizations), ,60, ,34; and vocal relaxation (relaxed, calm, anxious, and tense), .92,,41. and frequency of nodding (a single item intended to measure pleasantness). Thesemeasures failed to produce significant results, probably due to their low reliabilities.Because Buller et al. (1991) had encountered difficu lty in inducing a high degree of suspi-cion,and because there is reason to question whether post-interaction ratings of suspicionare uncontaminated by the interaction itself, a separate manipulation check study wasconducted . Participants (N = 40) received the same suspicion inductions as the experi-mental subjects, began the interview, then were stopped after the walk-through signal tocomplete measures on the degree to which they expected their partner to lie and weremotivated to detect deceit (respective reliabilities : , 8 1 , .56 ). (The manipulation checkstudy also included some additional features not reported here: a vigilance measure thathad low relia bility r = ,40); separate measurements before the actual interaction and afterits initiation, to track the persistence of the induction effects into the interaction; and apilot test of a very high suspicion manipulation,) Results showed that suspicion induced alinear increase in expectations that the partner wou ld lie, t(36) = 4.02 , p = ,027 (nosuspicion M = 14,06, moderateM = 15 ,14, high M = 19,59) and increased motivationto detect deception in the two suspicion conditions (no M = 12,41, moderate M =15,50, high M = 15.35), f(2,36) = 4.56 ,p = ,017,

ReferencesAndersen, P, A, (1985), Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A, W.Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds,), M ultichannel integrations of nonv erbal behavior (pp,1-36),Hillsdale, N): Eribaum.Argyle, M, (1972), Non-verbal communication in human social interaction. In R. A, Hinde(Ed.), Non-verbal communication (pp, 243-269), Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,Bavelas, J, B., Black, A,, Chovil, N,, & Mullett, J, (1990), Equivocal comm unication. New-bury Park, CA: Sage,Berger, C. R, (in press), A plan-based approach to strategic communication. In D, E, Hewes(Ed,), Cognitivebases of interpersonalcom munication. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.Bernieri, F, J,, & Rosenthal, R, (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching andInteractional synchrony. In R, S, Feldman & B, Rim6 (Eds.), Fundamentalsof nonverbalbehavior (pp, 401-432), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,Bond, C. F., Jr,, Omar, A,, Pitre, U., Lashley, B, R,, Skaggs, L, M,, & Kirk, C, T. (1992),

Fishy-looking liars: Deception judgment from expectancy-violation, lournal of Person-ality and SocialPsychology, 63, 969-977,


28/31


29/31

183JUDEE K, BURCOON, DAVID B, BULLER

Coker, D. A,, & Burgoon, J. K, (1987). The nature of conversational involvement and nonver-bal encoding patterns. Human CommunicationResearch, 13,463-494.DePaulo, B, M, , Kirkendol, S. E, (1989), The motivational impairment effect in the com mu ni-cation of deception. InJ,C. Yuille (Ed,),Credibilityassessment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Aca-demic Publishers,DePaulo, B. M ., Kirkendol, S, E,, Tang, J,, & O'B rien, T. P, (1988), The motivational impair-ment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions, journal ofNonverbalBehavior,12,177-202,DePaulo, B, M., Lanier, K,, & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar,journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology, 45 , 1096-1103,DePaulo, B M., Stone, J. I,, & Lassiter, G, D, (1985), Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B, R,Schlenker (Ed.), Theself and social life (pp, 323-370), New York: McGraw-Hill,deTurck, M. A., & Miller, G, R. (1985). Deception and arousal: Isolating the behavioralcorrelates of deception. Human CommunicationResearch, 12,181-201,Ekman, P, (1988), Lying and nonverbal behavior: Theoretical isues and new findings, journalof NonverbalBehavior,12,163-176,Ekman, P,, & Friesen, W, V, (1969a), Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry,1,88-105,Ekman, P., & Friesen, W, V. (1969b). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, ori-gins, usage, and codings, Semiotica, 1,49-97,Goffman, E, (1959), Presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: AnchorBooks.Grice, P. (1989).Studiesin the way ofwords. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,Hale,J. L., & Burgoon , J. K. (1984), Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal imm ediacy,journal of NonverbalBehavior, 8, 287-314,Kellermann, K, (1992), Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic. Com-munication Monographs, 59, 288-300,Knapp, M, L., Cody, M, J,, & Reardon, K, K, (1987), Nonverbal signals. In C, R, Berger &S, H, Chaffee (Eds,),Handbook of com munication science(pp. 385-41 8), Beverly Hills,CA: Sage,Knapp, M, L,, Hart, R, P., Dennis, H , S. (1974). An e xploration of deception as a com mu -nication construct. Human CommunicationResearch, 1,15-29,Kraut, R, E. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying,journal ofPerson-ality and SocialPsychology, 36 , 380-391,

Kraut, R, E,, & Poe, D, (1980), On the line: The deception judgements of customs inspectorsand laymen,journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology, 39 , 784-798,Mc Clintock, C, C , & Hun t, R. G, (1975), N onverbal indicators of affect and deception in aninterview setting,journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 5, 54-67,McCroskey, J, C, (1972), An introduction to rhetorical communication (2nd ed,), EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.McC roskey, J, C , Larson, C. E., & Knapp, M, L, (197 1). An introduction to interpersonalcommunication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Miller, G. R., & Burgoon, J, K, (1982), Factors affecting witness credibility. In N, L, Kerr &R. M. Bray (Eds,), Thepsychology ofthecourtroom (pp, 169-194), New York: AcademicPress,Newton, D. A,, & Burgoon, J, K. (1990), Nonverbal conflict behaviors: Functions, strategies,and tactics. In D. D, Cahn (Ed,),Intimates in conflict: A communicationperspective (pp,77-1 04), H illsdale, NJ: Eribaum,


30/31

18 4JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

O Hair, H. D., Cody, M, J,, Wang, X-T., & Chao, E. Y, (1990), Vocal stress and deceptiondetection among Chinese.C omm unication Quarterly, 38, 158-169,Palmer, M. T,, & Simmons, K. B, (1993, November), Interpersonal intentions, nonverbalbehaviors and judgments of liking: Encoding, decoding, andconsciousness. Paper pre-sented to the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami.Patterson, M, L. (1983). Nonverbalbehavior:A functionalperspective.New York: Springer-Verlag.Patterson, M, L, (1987). Presentational and affect-management functions of nonverbal in-volvement, journal of NonverbalBehavior,11,110-122,Toris, C , & DePaulo, B. M, (1985). Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of decep-tion on interpersonal perceptions, journal of P ersonality and Social Psychology 471063-1073,Vri j ,A ,, & W ink el, F, W. (1991), Cultural patterns in D utch and Surinam nonverbal behavior:An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters, journal of NonverbalBehavior,15,169-184,Weiler, J., & Weinstein, E. (1972). Honesty, fabrication, and the enhancement of credibility.5oc(ometry, 35, 316-331,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, 2-59), New York: Academic Press.Zuckerma n, M ., & Driver, R, E. (1985 ), Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal comm unication ofdeception. In A, W, Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations ofnonver-bal behavior {pp. 129-148), Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum,


31/31

Interpersonal Deception III. Effects of Deceit on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior...

Documents

Transcript of Interpersonal Deception III. Effects of Deceit on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior...