INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION .1. DECEIVERS REACTIONS TO RECEIVERS SUSPICIONS AND PROBING

Mutual influence in deception was investigated in a study on the effectiveness of probing as a detection strategy. It was proposed that receivers communicate suspicion in probing questions, causing deceivers to alter their nonverbal presentations and appear more convincing, and that detection when probing is improved by suspicion and familiarity with the source. Interviews were conducted in which the source (a stranger or friend) either told the truth or lied to receivers. Half of the receivers were induced to be suspicious and half probed for additional information. Receivers in the suspicion condition actually encoded less suspicious probes, suggesting that they attempted to deceive sources about their suspicions. However, their nonverbal behavior belied more cognitive activity, perhaps due to increased scrutiny of sources’ communication. By comparison, deception triggered more suspicious probes. Sources accurately perceived suspicion and were more sensitive to suspicion communicated by friends, implying that decoding suspicion may be similar to detecting deceit. As expected, deceivers altered their behavior when they perceived suspicion and their behavior management was more pronounced when probed. Deceivers concealed their deceit by masking arousal cues and encoding a more positive demeanor. In the final analysis, neither probing, suspicion, nor familiarity improved deception detection. © 1991, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. All rights reserved.