Skip to main content

Suggestion and Credibility: Lie Detection Based on Content-Related Cues

  • Conference paper
Suggestion and Suggestibility

Abstract

The term “suggestive communication” refers to those pragmatic aspects of communication which are not stated explicitly by the sender but have to be “read between the lines” or inferred from contextual cues by the receiver. Suggestive processes come into play to the extent that communication goes beyond the mere coding and decoding of language signs or body signs (Austin, 1962; Higgins, 1981; Rommetveit, 1974). In fact, the directly stated contents of verbal messages often serve to distract the receiver from noticing subtle influences that reach the receiver via indirect paths (Loftus, 1975). One prominent variant of these phenomena, which the present chapter addresses, is the communication of credibility or, stated differently, the impression conveyed by the sender that he/she is telling the truth rather than lying. Accordingly, the problem of lie detection (DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1979; Ekman & Friesen, 1974) is conceived here as a paradigm for studying suggestive communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1971). Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskett, G., & Freddie, R.O. (1974). Aspects of language pragmatics and the social perception of lying. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 112–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, D. (1973). Truth is a linguistic question. Language, 49, 539–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgida, E., & Brekke, N. (1981). The base rate fallacy in attribution and prediction. In J.H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demos, R. (1960). Lying to oneself. Journal of Philosophy, 57, 588–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1713–1722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 288–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J.L., & Doob, A.N. (1968). Deviancy. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1971). Logic and conversation: The William James lectures, Harvard University, 1967–68. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E.T. (1981). The “communication game”: Implications for social cognition and persuasion. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hursch, C., Hammond, K.R., & Hursch, J. (1964). Some methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability studies. Psychological Review, 71, 42–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M.L., & Comadena, M.E. (1979). Telling it like it isn’t: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications. Human Communication Research, 5, 270–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M.L., Hart, R.P., & Dennis, H.S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R.E. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts. Journal of Communication, 30, 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Training for calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E.F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lykken, D.T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detector industry. American Psychologist, 29, 725–739.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meerloo, J.A. (1978). Camouflage versus communication: In the beginning was the lie. Communication, 3, 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, J.H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory. Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M.T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 261–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R., Ostrom, T.M., & Brock, T.C. (1981). (Eds.). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podlesny, J.A., & Raskin, D.C. (1977). Physiological measures and the detection of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 782–799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone has to lie. In M. Sanches & B.G. Blount (Eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of language use. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J.R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language and Society, 5, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances of experimental social psychology: Vol. 14. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fiedler, K. (1989). Suggestion and Credibility: Lie Detection Based on Content-Related Cues. In: Gheorghiu, V.A., Netter, P., Eysenck, H.J., Rosenthal, R. (eds) Suggestion and Suggestibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-73875-3_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-73875-3_25

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-73877-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-73875-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics