1. Hidden Patterns of Nonverbal Behavior Associated with Truth and Deception SPSP Data Blitz Dr. Judee Burgoon Jeff Proudfoot David Wilson Ryan Schuetzler

2. Introduction Communication tends to be highly patterned – Including subtle, perhaps imperceptible patterns – Communication patterns are complex Deception – Much research focused on very brief segments – Ignores patterns among behaviors and dynamic changes Does deception affect patterning and temporal changes? 1/17/2013 SPSP 2

3. Behavior Pattern Analysis Bottom-up search of time-coded event data Identifies behaviors occurring sequentially within a critical, statistically significant time interval Patterns may be combined to form multi-level, nested patterns (Magnusson 2005, 2006) More information available at www.noldus.com 1/17/2013 SPSP 3

4. Behavior Pattern Analysis 1/17/2013 SPSP 4

5. Behavior Pattern Analysis 1/17/2013 SPSP 5

6. Behavior Pattern Analysis t-pattern 1/17/2013 SPSP 6

7. Sample (Nested) Pattern 17 elements, 6 levels, 4 occurrences 1/17/2013 SPSP 7

8. Experiment 1: Mock Theft Method Participants randomly assigned to “steal” a wallet from a classroom Both guilty and innocent participants interviewed – Innocent participants told the truth – Guilty participants lied Video-recorded interviews included baseline and theft-relevant questions Nonverbal behaviors manually coded with timestamps, submitted to Theme Analysis – e.g., illustrative gestures, adaptor behaviors, etc. 1/17/2013 SPSP 8

9. Mock Theft Results Truth tellers averaged longer patterns (M = 6.55, SD = 1.95) than did deceivers (M = 5.17, SD = 2.16) Deceivers repeated patterns (M = 9.48, SD = 2.95) more than truth tellers (M = 7.93, SD = 2.48), i.e., more redundancy During baseline questions, truth tellers had more patterns (M = 247, SD = 336) than deceivers (M = 98, SD = 395) During theft questions, truth tellers introduced far more new patterns (M = 23.6, SD = 32.2) than deceivers (M = 3.6, SD = 9.95) 1/17/2013 SPSP 9

10. Experiment 2: Cheating Method Participants played a trivia game with a partner (confederate) – Randomly induced to cheat (or not) – High-stakes academic consequences if caught cheating – Some refused to cheat and some cheaters confessed All participants interviewed Video-recorded interviews included baseline, suspicion and direct accusation questions Nonverbal behaviors manually coded with timestamps, submitted to Theme Analysis 1/17/2013 SPSP 10

11. Cheating Results Cheaters had fewer total patterns and fewer unique patterns (due to inactivity, redundancy?) Statistic Condition Honest (n = 25) Cheaters (n = 6) Confessors (n = 4) Induced, but didn’t cheat (n = 18) Mean Unique Patterns293.9195.3280.3339.8 StDev Unique Patterns337.598.7134.9290.8 Mean Total Patterns1478.41055.31574.51678.1 StDev Total Patterns1303.8371.3651.11199.8 1/17/2013 SPSP 11

12. Comparison Cheaters vs. HonestLiars vs. Confessors Cheaters vs. Induced but didn’t cheat df = 29df = 8df = 22 t p-value t t Num Unique Patterns1.105 0.281 1.042 0.328 2.028 0.052 Total Num Patterns1.235 0.230 1.341 0.217 2.185 0.037 Cheating Results--Group Comparisons 1/17/2013 SPSP 12

13. Experiment 3: StrikeCom Method 3-person groups (N = 14 triads) in a mock military command scenario (search & destroy enemy missile sites) Completed 5 search turns + 1 strike turn 1 deceptive, 1 suspicious, and 1 naïve player Nonverbal behaviors manually coded with timestamps, submitted to Theme Analysis 1/17/2013 SPSP 13

14. StrikeCom Results Number of unique patterns ranged from 48 to over 1,600 Deceivers exhibited strategic, manipulative patterning behavior Suspicious players showed investigatory probing patterning behavior 1/17/2013 SPSP 14

15. StrikeCom Results Variable AirIntelSpace MSDM M % Illustrator gestures20.6(15.6)32.6(12.0)46.9(23.1) % Adaptor gestures27.4(15.4)43.9(16.1)28.7(12.7) % Lip adaptors36.0(20.6)29.0(12.0)35.0(17.5) % Speaker head movements34.2(21.4)30.4(16.0)35.4(19.5) % Listener head movements42.4(29.7)26.6(17.4)31.0(18.5) % of speaking activities29.8(16.9)31.2(11.4)39.1(19.4) % Total patterns46.2(21.2)41.3(23.2)54.1(19.3) % Total patterns solo21.3(13.5)25.8(18.6)27.9(17.5) % Total patterns initiating34.5(17.0)26.7(13.4)38.8(19.0) % Total patterns with switches25.0(16.8)25.9(22.8)28.2(16.4) Pattern length (complexity)1.42(0.7)1.31(0.8)1.67(0.6) Means and Standard Deviations of Behaviors and General Pattern Statistics (N = 14) 1/17/2013 SPSP 15

16. Analysis and Results Percent of session patterns Speaking behaviorInteractivitySpecific roles Started by Air talking Started by Intel talking Started by Space talking With at least one switch With one actor With two actors With three actors No Air No Intel No Space With Air With Intel With Space With Air.55.34-.63.03-.19.04.45-.56.37.58—.01-.74 With Intel-.08.26-.51.96-.84.81.62.66-.59.59——-.11 With Space-.52-.58.74.03-.09.15-.08.45.11-.53——— Select Intercorrelations of Session-Level Patterning Behaviors (N = 14) 1/17/2013 SPSP 16

17. Discussion Deceptive behavior is highly patterned Pattern analysis reveals many relationships that would otherwise go unnoticed – Tendency of deceiver to initiate patterns with manipulative behaviors – Higher frequency of interaction between deceiver and suspector (excluding the third group member) Structure of and relatedness among interactive behaviors only available through pattern analysis 1/17/2013 SPSP 17

18. Questions? 1/17/2013 SPSP 18