Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Positive Effects in Detecting Lies from Training to Recognize Behavioral Anomalies

  • Published:
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examined whether training in both the verbal and nonverbal indicators of truth telling and lying would have positive effects on Law Enforcement Officers’ (LEOs) ability to evaluate truths from lies. College course-level training on empirically validated verbal and nonverbal indicators of truth telling and lying was provided to mid- to advanced-career level LEOs, whose accuracy in detecting lies from truths was assessed pre- and post-training using truthful and deceptive videos of mock crimes and opinions. A marginally significant truth bias existed at pre-test; training, however, resulted in a significant improvement in accuracy rates for both truth and lie videos, and the truth bias that existed at pre-test was eliminated. Additional analyses indicated that accuracy rates improved for videos of mock crimes but not for opinions. These findings add to a small but growing literature that indicates that training on validated verbal and nonverbal indicators of truth telling and lying has positive benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the Crime videos the questions were: (1) Can you describe exactly what happened, what you saw and did, when you went in that room? (2) Describe what your thoughts were when you stood in that room and looked in that envelope. (3) Do you know how much money was or was supposed to be in the envelope? (4) Did you take that money from the envelope? (5) Did you bring the money with you into this room? (6) Are you lying to me right now? For the Opinion videos the questions were: (1) What is your opinion on this issue? (2) Why do you believe that? (3) How long have you had this opinion? (4) Did you just make it up a few minutes ago? (5) Are you lying to me now?

  2. The approach that we advocate for the use of behavioral anomalies is compatible with the PEACE model of investigative interviewing. PEACE is an acronym for Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluation, and is a set of guidelines for non-confrontational investigative interviewing proposed by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in the U.K. in 1993. The PEACE approach minimizes accusatory interrogation tactics that are often adopted if individuals are suspected of lying, as inferences about lying are often associated with inferences about guilt. To be sure, however, the correct interpretation of behavioral anomalies can be used in any investigative interviewing procedure, as they are ultimately used not to draw conclusions about veracity, but instead to draw attention to topics to pursue through more questions (Frank et al. 2006).

References

  • Adams SH, Harpster T (2008) 911 Homocide calls and statement analysis. Fed Bureau of Investig Law Enforcement Bull 77(6):22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams SH, Jarvis JP (2006) Indicators of veracity and deception: an analysis of written statements made to police. Speech Lang and the Law 13(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond CF, DePaulo BM (2006) Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 10:214–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond CF, DePaulo BM (2008) Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias. Psychol Bull 134(4):477–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond GD, Malloy DN, Thompson LA, Arias EA, Nunn SN (2004) Post-probe decision making in a prison context. Commun Monogr 71(3):269–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Chalrton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129(1):74–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • deTurck MA, Miller GR (1985) Deception and arousal: isolating the behavioral correlates of deception. Hum Commun Res 16:603–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Docan-Morgan T (2007) Training law enforcement officers to detect deception: a critique of previous research and framework for the future. Appl Psychol in Crim Justice 3(2):143–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran ND, McCarthy PM, Hall C, McNamara DS (2010) The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics 31:439–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P, Friesen WV (1969) Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 32:88–105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P, Matsumoto D (2008) Microexpression Recognition Training Tool, Elite (MiX Elite). Available at http://www.humintell.com

  • Ekman P, O'Sullivan M, Friesen WV, Scherer KR (1991) Invited article: face, voice, and body in detecting deceit. J Nonverbal Behav 15(2):125–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P, O'Sullivan M, Frank MG (1999) A few can catch a liar. Psychol Sci 10(3):263–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley TH, deTurck MA, Young MJ (1995) Baseline familiarity in lie detection. Commun Res Rep 12:160–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank MG, Ekman P (1997) The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. J Personal Soc Psychol 72:1429–1439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank MG, Feeley TH (2003) To catch a liar: challenges for research in lie detection training. J Appl Commun Res 31(1):58–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank MG, Svetieva E (2013) Deception. In: Matsumoto D, Frank MG, Hwang HS (eds) Nonverbal communication: science and applications. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 121–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frank MG, Yarbrough JD, Ekman P (2006) Improving interpersonal evaluations: combining science and practical experience. In: Williamson T (ed) Investigative interviewing: rights, research, regulation. Willan Publishing, Portland, pp 229–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley CM, Frank MG (2011) Executing facial control during deception situations. J Nonverbal Behav 35:119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson MK (1988) Reality monitoring: an experimental phenomenological approach. J Exp Psychol Gen 117(4):390–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson MK, Raye CL (1981) Reality monitoring. Psychol Rev 88(1):67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin SM, Fong CT (1999) "I'm Innocent!": effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law Hum Behav 23:499–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut RE (1978) Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. J Personal Soc Psychol 36(4):380–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry KL, Brigham JC (1992) The effect of training in criteria-based content analysis on the ability to detect deception in aduts. Law Hum Behav 16(6):663–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine TR, Park HS, McCornack SA (1999) Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: documenting the "veracity effect". Commun Monogr 66:125–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine TR, Feeley TH, McCornack SA, Hughes M, Harms CM (2005) Testing the effects if nonverbal behavior training on accuracy in deception detection with the inclusion of a bogus training control group. West J Commun 69(3):203–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masip J, Sporer SL, Garrido E, Herrero C (2005) The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence. Psychol Crime and Law 11(1):99–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masip J, Alonso H, Garrido E, Herrero C (2009a) Training to detect what? the biasing effects of training on veracity judgments. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:1282–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masip J, Garrido E, Herrero C (2009b) Heuristic versus systematic processing of information in detecting deception: questioning the truth bias. Psychol Rep 105(1):11–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto D, Hwang HS (2010) Subtle expression recognition training tool: SuBX Professional. Available at http://www.humintell.com

  • Matsumoto D, Hwang HS (2011) Evidence for training the ability to read microexpressions of emotion. Motiv Emot 35(2):181–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto D, Yoo SH, Fontaine JRJ, Anguas-Wong AM, Arriola M, Ataca B, Grossi E (2008) Mapping expressive differences around the world: the relationship between emotional display rules and individualism v. Collectivism. J Cross-Cult Psychol 39(1):55–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto D, Hwang HS, Skinner L, Frank MG (2011) Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June, 1–11

  • Mehrabian A (1971) Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. J Exp Res Personal 5:64–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman ML, Pennebaker JW, Berry DS, Richards JM (2003) Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 29:665–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Sullivan M, Ekman P (2004) The wizards of deception detection. In: Granhag PA, Stromwall LA (eds) The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 269–286

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O'Sullivan M, Frank MG, Hurley CM (2010) Police lie detection: accuracy, training, and new directions. In: Peters JM (ed) Police psychology. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 75–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter S, ten Brinke L (2008) Reading between the lies: identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychol Sci 19(5):508–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Porter S, ten Brinke L (2010) The truth about lies: what words in detecting high-stakes deception? Leg Criminol Psychol 15:57–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter S, Yuille JC (1996) The language of deceipt: an investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law Hum Behav 20:443–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter S, Birt AR, Yuille JC, Lehman DR (2000a) The negotiation of false memories: the influence of interviewer and rememberer characteristics on memory distortion. Psychol Sci 11:513–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter S, Woodworth M, Birt AR (2000b) Truth, lies, and videotape: an investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law Hum Behav 24(6):643–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Porter S, Juodis M, ten Brinke L, Klein R, Wilson K (2010) Evaluation of the effectiveness of a brief deception detection training program. The J of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychol 21(1):66–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter S, ten Brinke L, Wallace B (2012) Secrets and lies: involuntary leakage in deceptive facial expressions as a function of emotional intensity. J Nonverbal Behav 36:23–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruby CL, Brigham JC (1997) The usefulness of the criteria-based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations: a critical review. Psychol Publ Policy Law 3(4):705–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith N (2001) Reading between the lines: An evaluation of the Scientific Content Analysis technique (SCAN). London, UK: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit: Police Research Series

  • ten Brinke L, Porter S, Baker A (2012) Darwin the detective: Observable facial muscle contractions reveal emotional high-stakes lies. Evolution and Human Behavior

  • The Global Deception Research Team (2006) A world of lies. J Cross-Cult Psychol 37(1):60–74

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Undeutsch U (1989) The development of statement reality analysis. In: Yuille JC (ed) Credibility assessment. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 101–119

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2007) Criteria based content analysis: a qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychol Publ Policy Law 11:3–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A, Mann S (2001) Who killed my relative? Police officers' ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychol Crime Law 7:119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A, Mann S (2006) Criteria-based content analysis: Am empirical test of its underlying process. Psychol Crime Law 12(4):337–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren G, Schertler E, Bull P (2009) Detecting deception from emotional and unemotional cues. J Nonverbal Behav 33:59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaparniuk J, Yuille JC, Taylor S (1995) Assessing the credibility of true and false statements. Int J Law Psychiatry 18:343–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman M, DePaulo BM, Rosenthal R (1981) Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 14. Academic Press, New York, pp 2–60

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Matsumoto.

Additional information

Portions of this report were prepared with the support of research grants FA9550-09-1-0281 and FA9550-11-1-0306 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H.C., Skinner, L.G. et al. Positive Effects in Detecting Lies from Training to Recognize Behavioral Anomalies. J Police Crim Psych 29, 28–35 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9115-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9115-5

Keywords

Navigation