• Title/Summary/Keyword: deception detection cues

Search Result 2, Processing Time 0.016 seconds

Subjective Indicators of Deception Detection in High/Low Stake Situations: Comparison among University Students and Prison Officers and Prisoners (이해득실 상황에 따른 거짓말 탐지에 대한 주관적 지표 - 대학생, 교도관, 재소자들을 대상으로 -)

  • Woo Byoung Jhon;Si Up Kim
    • Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue
    • /
    • v.11 no.4
    • /
    • pp.1-22
    • /
    • 2005
  • Purposes of this study was as following; What differences do subjective indicators of deception detection according to high and low stake situations? Does groups difference appear in beliefs about deception cues? Is what differences between objective indicators and subjective indicators of deceptions? Participants of this study were consisted of university students, prison officers, prisoners. They completed a questionnaire concerning beliefs about 21 verbal and nonverbal behaviours in high/low-stake situations. For each behaviour, they were asked to rate on a seven-point scale how are these behaviours changed comparing to normal times. The results were that subjective indicators of deception were no differences between high-stake and low-stake situations, and no differences among groups. Also, it appeared that the subjective indicators of deception were substantly different from the objective indicators of deception.

Paralinguistic Behavior as a Deception Cue (거짓말의 단서로서 준언어행위)

  • Kim, Daejoong;Park, Jihye
    • The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
    • /
    • v.19 no.4
    • /
    • pp.187-196
    • /
    • 2019
  • This experimental study examines whether paralinguistic behavior is a deception cue in an interrogation. 92 college students participated in an experiment and were randomly assigned to two conditions. Participant were then asked to take the money or not to take the money according to the condition they were assigned. Then participants had a face-to-face interrogation. During the interrogation, participants' paralinguistic behavior was recorded and used for coding and analysis. Results reveal that participants' paralinguistic behaviors differ depending on question types and deceptive paralinguistic cues are speech speed and fillers for the closed critical question and response latency, response length, and fillers for the open critical question. These findings implicate that part of paralinguistic behavior could be a deception cue and thus these cues might be applicable to deception detection in real world criminal investigations.