ABSTRACT
SINCE the publication of work by Ekman and Friesen (1969, 1972 1974) and Knapp, Hart, and Dennis (1974), communication scholars have demonstrated considerable concern and effort in determining reliable, valid, and generalizable nonverbal, paralinguistic, and linguistic differences between deceptive and truthful communications (Bauchner, Brandt, & Miller, 1977; Brandt, Miller, & Hocking, 1981; Cody & O’Hair, 1983; Comadena, 1982; DePaulo, Davis, & Lanier, 1980; Dulaney, 1982; Feldman, Devin-Sheehan, & Allen, 1978; Fugita, Hogrebe, & Wexley, 1980; Geis & Moon, 1981; Geizer, Rarick, & Soldow, 1977; Hocking, Miller, & Fontes, 1978; Hocking, Bauchner, Kaminski, & Miller, 1979; Hocking & Leathers, 1980; Knapp & Comadena, 1979; Miller & Burgoon, 1982; Miller, deTurck, & Kalbfleisch, 1983; O’Hair, Cody, & McLaughlin, 1981; Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981). In these endeavors, two methodologies have prevailed: the deception detection accuracy study (asking how accurate observers are in identifying deception and how accurate observers are in using different channels) and the cue leakage study (asking whether or not deceptive and truthful messages can be differentiated from one another on the basis of measurable variables). Most of these studies have addressed the issue of controllability, with Ekman and Friesen’s sending capacity hypothesis as the typical focus. Ekman and Friesen argue that when liars do not want to be detected, they will control channels high in sending capacity (the face) and that the low sending channels (feet, legs) will result in greater cue leakage. Considerable evidence indicates that observers who have access to the body channel are often more accurate in detecting deception than other observers and that more body-related cues are leaked than facial cues (Ekman & Friesen, 1969, 1972, 1974; Ekman, Friesen, & Scherer, 1976; Hocking et al., 1979; Fugita et al., 1980; Littlepage & Pineault, 1978, 1979; Zuckerman et al., 1981).
