Deception Cues
deTurck and Miller (1990) note that with the exception of arousal in general, there is no common or universal behavioral cue set that identifies deception across all individuals. While the presence of a universal cue would be convenient, the usage of behavioral information still can contribute a great deal to deception prediction if appropriately analyzed. DePaulo (1992) states that observing the consistency and match between an individual's non-verbal behavior and the concurrent verbal-linguistic message can be highly predictive of deception. Research has shown hat the usage of such an approach can often come quite naturally and is significantly predictive (Rotenberg, Simourd, & Moore, 1989).
Since it is suggested that all behavior be compared to the concurrent verbal information, an examination of the non-linguistic verbal behavior is pertinent. It has been noted that speech has a function beyond the verbal conveyance of semantic information (Streeter, Krauss, Geller, Olson, & Apple, 1977). Non-Linguistic cues within verbalizations can display an individual's affect and sympathetic arousal (stress) by variations in pitch, amplitude, and rate of articulation (Streeter, Krauss, Geller, Olson, & Apple, 1977). Variation in pitch frequency has been one of the most frequently and consistently observed behavioral variations of deception (Vrij, 1994; Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall, Larrance, & Rosenthal, 1979). Streeter, Krauss, Geller, Olson, and Apple (1977) showed subjects an extremely unpleasant surgical film and required them to later describe the film to a confederate as either pleasant (deception condition) or unpleasant (truthful condition). Subjects in the deception condition, compared to their honest counterparts, had a significantly elevated pitch frequency when describing the film to the confederate. The increased frequency is thought to be the result of heightened physiological tension brought forth by the sympathetic arousal-deception reaction (Walters, 1996). An individual's ability to ascertain pitch variation, and subsequently infer honesty or deception from such an observation has been empirically demonstrated (Streeter, Krauss, Geller, Olson, & Apple, 1977). Unfortunately, subjects did not appear to use this information unless directed to do so.
Further non-linguistic behavioral cue research has identified a number of additional speech disturbances predictive of probable deception. Variations such as decreased rate of articulation, speech hesitations, and response brevity have all proven to be predictive of deceptive behavior (Burgoon & Buller, 1994; Harrison, Hwalke, Raney, & Fritz, 1978; Kraut, 1978; Mehrabian, 1971; Vrij, 1994). These non-linguistic speech disturbances appear to be directly related to an individual's mental processing status (Walters, 1996). When an individual is experiencing low levels of arousal and stress (i.e., while conveying honest information) their speech is characterized as having a consistent, repetitive, and almost rhythmic pattern. However, when an individual is experiencing increased arousal (i.e., while deceiving) their speech pattern becomes slowed, inconsistent, broken, and with increased speech errors due to a dramatically increased amount of cognitive processing that is occurring (Walters, 1996). Occasionally, a deceivers speech rate may dramatically increase. This is believed to be the result of the presentation of a question or inquiry that the deceiver had anticipated and prepared for (Walters, 1996).
