This study investigated how an individual's deceptive intention may be inferred from non-verbal behavioral representation while simultaneously concealing suspicious movement. Using a paper-and-pencil test, 33 participants were asked to deceive a hypothetical surveillance system. Results showed that deceptive intention can be inferred from trajectories drawn by participants. Patterns of trajectories were clustered. The majority of participants believed that not being suspicious is more important than being deceitful. Features exhibited in trajectories require more in-depth qualitative analyses in future studies. Computer-based experiments are also recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurgoonJ.AdkinsM.KruseJ.JensenM. L.DeokarA.TwitchellD. P. (2004, October). Moving Toward Intent Detection: A Tool-based Approach. Paper presented at the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, Washington, D.C.
2.
BurgoonJ.AdkinsM.KruseJ.JensenM. L.MeservyT.TwitchellD. P. (2005). An Approach for Intent Identification by Building on Deception Detection. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA.
3.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. B.DillmanL.WaltherJ. B. (1995). Interpersonal Deception: IV. Effects of Suspicion on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics. Human Communication Research, 22(2), 163–196.
4.
CohnJ. F.SchmidtK.GrossR.EkmanP. (2002). Individual Differences in Facial Expression: Stability over Time, Relation to Self-Reported Emotion, and Ability to Inform Person Identification. Paper presented at the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Multimodel Interfaces.
5.
de CastroB. O.VeermanJ. W.KoopsW.BoschJ. D.MonshouwerH. J. (2002). Hostile Attribution of Intent and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Child Development, 73(3), 916–934.
6.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V. (1969) Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–105.
7.
FajenB. R.WarrenW. H.TemizerS.KaelblingL. P. (2003). A Dynamical Model of Visually-Guided Steering, Obstacle Avoidance, and Route Selection. International Journal of Computer Vision, 54(1/2/3), 13–34.
8.
JianJ-Y.MatsukaT.NickersonJ. V. (in press). Recognizing Deception in Trajectories. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, Canada..
MeratniaN.de ByR. A. (2002). Aggregation and comparison of trajectories. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 10th ACM international symposium on Advances in geographic information systems, McLean, Virginia, USA.
11.
PoppR.ArmourT.SenatorT.NumrychK. (2004, March). Countering Terrorism through Information Technology. Communication of the ACM, 47(3), 36–43.
12.
ReynoldsT. G.HistonJ. M.DavisonH. J.HansmanR. J. (2002). Structure, Intent & Conformance Monitoring in ATC. Paper presented at Air Traffic Management, Capri, Italy.
13.
SinghM. P.AsherN. M. (1990). Towards a Formal Theory of Intentions. Paper presented at the European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence.
14.
VrijA.EdwardK.RobertsK. P.BullR. (2000). Detecting Deceit via analysis of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4), 239–263.
15.
WingD. J.BallinM. G.KrishnamurthyK. (2004). Pilot in Command: A Feasibility Assessment of Autonomous Flight Management Operations. Paper presented at the 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences.
16.
ZacksJ. M. (2004). Using Movement and Intentions to Understand Simple Events. Cognitive Science, 28, 979–1008.
17.
ZuckermanM.SpiegelN. H.DePauloB. M.RosenthalR. (1982). Nonverbal Strategies for Decoding Deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6(3), 171–187.
