Behavioral detection of emotional, high-stakes deception: Replication in a registered report.

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-27 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000596
Leanne Ten Brinke, Samantha Sprigings, Cameo Brown, Chloe Kam, Hugues Delmas
{"title":"Behavioral detection of emotional, high-stakes deception: Replication in a registered report.","authors":"Leanne Ten Brinke, Samantha Sprigings, Cameo Brown, Chloe Kam, Hugues Delmas","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We replicated research by ten Brinke and Porter (2012), who reported that a combination of four behavioral cues (word count, tentative words, upper face surprise, lower face happiness) could accurately discriminate deceptive murderers from genuinely distressed individuals, pleading for the return of a missing relative.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that each of the four behavioral cues identified in the original study would be similarly related (i.e., size, direction, significance) to veracity in a novel set of pleaders. With these cues as predictors, we also hypothesized that logistic regression models-separately testing the original and replication samples-would produce similar accuracy rates exceeding chance in discriminating genuine from deceptive pleaders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We gathered a new sample of public appeals, including 82 genuine and 14 deceptive pleaders. After establishing ground truth, we transcribed video-recorded pleas and coded them for the presence of upper face surprise and lower face happiness. We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to determine word count and the proportion of tentative words in each appeal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found support for several hypotheses. Tentative words were used significantly more by deceptive (vs. genuine) pleaders in both the original and replication samples. Deceptive pleaders used significantly fewer words in both samples, although this relationship was significant only in the original sample. Liars in both samples smiled more than truth-tellers, although this relationship was statistically significant only in the replication sample. However, predictive accuracy was poor and did not differ from chance in the replication sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings do not provide a tidy picture of the reliability of behavioral cues to deception. Although some behavioral cues did replicate across samples, others did not. More research will be necessary to understand the factors that produce variable findings across samples, despite using the same methods of investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"173-181"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000596","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We replicated research by ten Brinke and Porter (2012), who reported that a combination of four behavioral cues (word count, tentative words, upper face surprise, lower face happiness) could accurately discriminate deceptive murderers from genuinely distressed individuals, pleading for the return of a missing relative.

Hypotheses: We hypothesized that each of the four behavioral cues identified in the original study would be similarly related (i.e., size, direction, significance) to veracity in a novel set of pleaders. With these cues as predictors, we also hypothesized that logistic regression models-separately testing the original and replication samples-would produce similar accuracy rates exceeding chance in discriminating genuine from deceptive pleaders.

Method: We gathered a new sample of public appeals, including 82 genuine and 14 deceptive pleaders. After establishing ground truth, we transcribed video-recorded pleas and coded them for the presence of upper face surprise and lower face happiness. We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to determine word count and the proportion of tentative words in each appeal.

Results: We found support for several hypotheses. Tentative words were used significantly more by deceptive (vs. genuine) pleaders in both the original and replication samples. Deceptive pleaders used significantly fewer words in both samples, although this relationship was significant only in the original sample. Liars in both samples smiled more than truth-tellers, although this relationship was statistically significant only in the replication sample. However, predictive accuracy was poor and did not differ from chance in the replication sample.

Conclusions: Findings do not provide a tidy picture of the reliability of behavioral cues to deception. Although some behavioral cues did replicate across samples, others did not. More research will be necessary to understand the factors that produce variable findings across samples, despite using the same methods of investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

情绪、高风险欺骗的行为检测:在注册报告中的复制。
目的:我们复制了ten Brinke和Porter(2012)的研究,他们报告了四种行为线索的组合(字数,尝试词语,上脸惊讶,下脸快乐)可以准确区分欺骗性谋杀者和真正痛苦的人,恳求返回失踪的亲人。假设:我们假设,在原始研究中确定的四种行为线索中的每一种都与一组新的恳求者的准确性有相似的关系(即大小,方向,重要性)。有了这些线索作为预测因素,我们还假设逻辑回归模型——分别测试原始样本和复制样本——在区分真正的领导者和欺骗性的领导者方面会产生相似的准确率。方法:重新收集公众呼吁样本,其中真实呼吁人82人,虚假呼吁人14人。在确定了基本事实之后,我们转录了视频记录的请求,并将它们编码为上脸惊讶和下脸快乐的存在。我们使用语言调查和单词计数来确定单词计数和每个上诉中暂定单词的比例。结果:我们发现了几个假设的支持。在原始样本和复制样本中,欺骗性的(相对于真实的)恳求者明显更多地使用试探性词语。在两个样本中,欺诈性领导者使用的词语都显著减少,尽管这种关系仅在原始样本中显著。两个样本中的说谎者都比说真话的人笑得多,尽管这种关系只有在重复样本中才有统计学意义。然而,预测的准确性很差,并且在复制样本中与机会没有区别。结论:研究结果并没有提供欺骗行为线索可靠性的清晰图景。尽管一些行为线索确实在样本中复制了,但其他的却没有。尽管使用相同的调查方法,但仍有必要进行更多的研究,以了解在不同样本中产生不同结果的因素。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信