Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2010

STEVENSON UNIVERSITY TABLE 2 Summary of Significant Findings (out of 88 indices) from DePaulo, et al. (2003). RESPONSE DOMAIN/ BEHAVIORAL CUE EFFECT SIZE DEFINITION (ADAPTED FROM DEPAULO, ET AL., 2003) Illustrators -0.14 Hand movements that accompany speech and illustrate it Deceptives exhibited fewer illustrators Cooperative (overall) -0.66 Speaker seems cooperative, helpful, positive, and secure Deceptives were seen as less cooperative Presses lips 0.16 Lips are pressed together Deceptives pressed their lips more Chin raise 0.25 Chin is raised; chin and lower lip are pushed up Deceptives raised their chin more Facial pleasantness -0.12 Speaker’s face appears pleasant; speakers show more positive facial expressions (such as smiles) than negative expressions (such as frowns or sneers) Deceptives displayed less facial pleasantness Nervous, tense (overall) 0.27 Speaker seems nervous, tense; speaker makes body movements that seem nervous Deceptives appeared more nervous Pupil dilation 0.39 Pupil size, usually measured by a pupillometer Deceptives showed more evidence of pupil dilation Fidgeting (undifferentiated) 0.16 Object fidgeting and/or self-fidgeting and/or facial fidgeting (undifferentiated) Deceptives exhibited more fidgeting Talking time -0.35 Proportion of the total time of the interaction that the speaker spends talking or seems talkative Deceptives spent less time talking Verbal immediacy (all categories) -0.31 Linguistic variations indicative of speakers’ efforts to distance themselves from their listener, the content of their communications, or the act of conveying those communications (e.g., “There’s Johnny” is more nonimmediate than “Here’s Johnny”), temporal nonimmediacy (the present tense is more immediate than other tenses), and passivity (the passive voice is more non-immediate than the active voice). Deceptives were less immediate in their response latencies across all categories Verbal and vocal immediacy (impressions) -0.55 Speakers respond in ways that seem direct, relevant, clear, and personal rather than indirect, distancing, evasive, irrelevant, unclear, or impersonal Deceptives showed less immediacy Verbal and vocal uncertainty (impressions) 0.3 Speakers seem uncertain, insecure, or not very dominant, assertive, or emphatic; speakers seem to have difficulty answering the question Deceptives showed more uncertainty Vocal tension 0.26 Voice sounds tense, not relaxed; or, vocal stress as assessed by the Psychological Stress Evaluator, which measures vocal micro-tremors, or by the Mark II voice analyzer Deceptives displayed more vocal tension INTERPRETATION NON-VERBAL PARALINGUISTIC 30

Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2010 | Page 32