Nature of the Lie and the Liar
While there appears to be a number of behavioral cues regarding deception that are consistent and relatively universal across subjects, research has shown that there is a great deal of difference between the detectability of liars, and that these individual liars tend to be consistently good or bad at the act of deception (Kraut, 1978). One could thereby presume that if there is such variability between the effectiveness of deceivers, then these factors must exist regarding either the liar or the lie that contribute to detection success.
Self Monitoring. One would clearly expect that self-monitoring is an essential component of deception. The usage of self-monitoring acts as a method to increase impression management, and thereby decrease the potential of deception detection (Littlepage & Pineault, 1984). Since deception involves the manipulation of verbal and non-verbal information, one must carry out self-monitoring in order to evaluate which cues are being displayed. Additionally, one must assess the extent to which the individual's manipulation of cues is creating the desired effect. Research has shown that individuals with high levels of self-monitoring ability, as compared to those with low self-monitoring ability, are significantly less likely to be detected when attempting to deceive (Miller & Stiff, 1993). It is thought that high self monitors are not only better able to evaluate and manipulate their behavior, because of a heightened cognitive awareness of their own presentation, but that they are also more practiced at impression management due to the increased usage of self-monitoring behaviors in their everyday lives (Miller & Stiff, 1993; Riggio & Friedman, 1983).
Rehearsal. Rehearsal also appears to play a role in the effectiveness of deception. Miller and Stiff (1993) hypothesized that rehearsing would have the ability to enhance the credibility of ones deception. They presumed that the act of rehearsal prior to deception would allow an individual to "cognitively play out" the deceptive act, leading to lower levels of stress, arousal, and nervousness. Subsequently, this act would be expected to decrease the presence of verbal, non-verbal, and paralinguistic deception cues. Research upon rehearsal and the usage of planned versus spontaneous lies has created a complex picture regarding the effects of rehearsing ones deceptive act (Littlepage & Pineault, 1984; Vrij, 1994; Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall, Larrance, & Rosenthal, 1979). Littlepage and Pineault, (1984) found that planned (rehearsed) lies did indeed appear to be more credible to evaluators than spontaneous ones. However, while the plausibility does appear to be increased it seems to be limited to verbal cues (Vrij, 1994). The number of non-verbal cues of deception were actually significantly higher with planned lies than with spontaneous ones (Littlepage & Pineault, 1984; Vrij, 1994). It appears that individuals who rehearsed their deceptive acts were limited to expressing deception cues on the verbal cue channels, while being unable to keep other deception cue behaviors stable (Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall, Larrance, & Rosenthal, 1979). Untrained lie detectors tended to focus on the verbal cues when evaluating deception (Littlepage & Pineault, 1984). However, if there was a suspicion of potential deception, judges tended to use non-verbal cues, subsequently predicting deception at a more appropriate rate (Littlepage & Pineault, 1984). The effect of rehearsing on the deception judgements of professional lie-catchers, who often analyze non-verbal behavior, can be predicted to lead to higher rates of detection compared to spontaneous liars.
