DECEPTION

1
DECEPTION DECEPTION DETECTION

• Deceiving others is an essential part of
  everyday social interaction (Aldert Vrij, 2000)

Deception quiz
2
liar, liar pants on fire?

• Were these famous (or infamous) figures lying or
  telling the truth?

3
lying is common

• DePaulo Kashy (1998) the average person lied
  to 34 of the people with whom she/he interacted
  in a typical week.
• Hample (1980) respondents reported lying an avg.
  of 13 times per week.
• DePaulo Bell (1996) Married couples lied in 1
  out of 10 interactions with their partners.
• DePaulo Kashy (1988) college students lied to
  their mothers in half of their conversations
• Robinson, Shepherd, Heywood (1998) 83 of
  respondents said they would lie in order to get a
  job.
• Hmmwhat if the people surveyed in these
  studies were lying?

• Bill Clinton, I never had sexual relations with
  that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, and I never, ever told
  anyone to lie.

4
why lie?

• motivations for lying
• Lie to benefit another
• Lie for affiliation
• Lie to protect privacy
• Lie to avoid conflict
• Lie to appear better (self promotion)
• Lie to protect self
• Lie to benefit self
• Lie to harm another (malicious intent)
• Lie for amusement (duping delight)

5
Donald Rumsfeld caught in a lie

• http//www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2537851

6
common misconceptionsabout lying

• No single, typical pattern of deceptive behavior
  exists (Vrij, 2000)
• Example 64 of liars in one study showed a
  decrease in hand finger and arm movements
• 35 of liars showed an increase in the same
  movements
• Observers rely on false signs
• Response latency taking longer to answer
• Eye contact providing less eye contact
• Postural shifting squirming, body movement
• All three are unreliable indicators of deception

7
more on misconceptions

• Liars dont necessarily look up and to the left
• No proof that gaze is tied to neuro-linguistic
  processing
• To date, evidence that eye movements indicate
  deception is lacking. Even those authors who
  suggested this relationship exists never
  presented any data supporting their view (Vrij,
  2000, p. 38)

8
conceptualizations of deception

• two category approach
• white lies (benefit other)
• blatant lies (self-interest)
• three category approach
• falsification (outright falsehoods)
• misrepresentation (distortion, exaggeration)
• concealment (omission, suppression)

Was Saddam Hussein too good at bluffing for his
own good? He convinced the Bush administration
that he really did have WMDs
9
lying is a form ofcompliance gaining

• deceptive communication is intentional
• deceptive communication seeks a specific effect
  or outcome
• deception (if its successful) occurs without the
  conscious awareness of the target
• deception involves two or more persons
• except for self-deception or being in denial
• deception relies on symbolic and nonsymbolic
  behavior (e.g., nonverbal cues)

10
people, in general, arepoor lie detectors

• People fare only slightly better than a coin toss
  at detecting deception
• In general, people are much better at lying than
  detecting lies (Vrij, 2000).
• Bond DePaulo (in press) a recent meta-analysis
  of 253 studies on deception revealed overall
  accuracy was approximately 53 percent
• 2/3rds of all people score between 50-59 in
  deception accuracy

Dr. Paul Ekman, one of the foremost experts on
deception detection
11
how good are so-called experts at deception
detection?

• Police officers and other law enforcement
  personnel believe they are adept at deception
  detection
• They often claim they can spot a liar based on
  nonverbal cues

• HoweverEkman tested so-called experts, e.g.,
  police, trial judges, psychiatrists, and the
  people who carry out lie detector tests.
• Most scored no better than chance.
• Clinical psychologists 67.5 accuracy
• L.A. county sheriffs 66.7 accuracy
• Secret service agents 73-80 accuracy

Secret service agents were best at detecting lies
12
the truth bias

• Research has repeatedly shown that people enter
  interactions with preconceived expectations for
  truthfulness (Burgoon, 2005)
• (Levine, Park, McCornack (1999) found that
  people are slightly better at detecting the
  truth, and slightly worse at detecting lies
• on average participants were able to detect a lie
  44 percent of the time, and able to detect the
  truth 67 percent of the time.
• In everyday encounters, liars were only detected
  15 of the time (Vrij, 2000).

13
a prototypical study on deception

• Ekman Friesen (1974) conducted a study in
  which
• some subjects watched only the liars heads
• some subjects watched only the liars bodies
• results subjects who watched only the liars
  bodies were more accurate in detecting deception.

14
Information Manipulation Theory

• McCornack et al (1992) developed IMT
• according to IMT, deception can be accomplished
  by varying the
• amount of information
• veracity of information
• relevance of information
• clarity of information

15
Four-Factor Model of deception

• Zuckerman et al (1981, 1985)
• Arousal lying increases arousal
• psychological and physical arousal
• pupil dilation, blink rate, speech errors, etc.
• Attempted Control liars try to control cue
  leakage
• sending capacity hypothesis (Ekman Friesen,
  1969 1974)
• liars find it easier to control their face
• cue leakage occurs in the body, extremities
• cue leakage occurs in the voice

• Emotion lying evokes negative affect
• lying triggers negative emotions like guilt,
  fear, anxiety
• Thinking lying requires more cognitive effort
• lying usually requires more cognitive energy
  formulating the lie, remembering the lie, making
  answers consistent

16
Interpersonal Deception Theory

• Buller Burgoon (1994) developed IDP
• strategic behaviors (intentional behaviors and
  plans)
• uncertainty and vagueness (few, sketchy details)
• nonimmediacy, reticence, withdrawal
  (psychological distance, disinterest, aloofness)
• dissociation (distance self from message, fewer
  I or me statements)
• image and relationship protecting behavior
  (smiling, nodding)
• nonstrategic leakage (unintentional leakage)
• arousal and nervousness
• negative affect
• incompetent communication performance

17
motivational impairment effect

• DePaulo Kirkendol (1989) developed the MIE
• Liars tend to over-control their nonverbal
  behavior
• Liars are more rigid, exhibit less body movement
• deception is often associated with less finger,
  hand, lower limb movements
• Liars do this because they think that
  nervousness, fidgeting, shifting will be
  perceived as deception
• Liars do this because they are concentrating on
  other channels and cant devote attention to
  their movements

18
lying as a communication skill

• Camden, Motley, Wilson (1984) say deception is
  a form of communication competence.
• A study by Feldman looked at the nonverbal
  behavior of 32 young people ages 11 to 16.
• Teens were rated on their social skills and
  overall popularity.
• Teens were then videotaped both lying and telling
  the truth about whether they liked a drink they
  were given.
• 58 college students were asked to watch the
  videotapes and judge how much each teenager
  really liked the drink.
• The socially adept teens were the best deceivers
  for all age groups. Both groups got better at
  lying as they got older.
• Possibly thanks to stronger nonverbal skills,
  girls were better at lying than boys.

19
characteristics of successful deceivers

• high Machiavellians are more manipulative,
  experience less guilt about lying
• high self monitors are more socially adroit and
  therefore better at lying .
• good actors some people have better acting
  skills than others, are better able to regulate
  their verbal and nonverbal cues
• Motivation high stakes lies are easier to
  detect, low stakes lies are harder to spot
• gender differences have revealed mixed results
• females sometimes focus on misleading nonverbal
  cues (eyes, face)
• women may possess a stronger truth bias
• individual differences tend to swamp gender
  differences

20
characteristics of successfullie detectors

• They dont concentrate on the face
• They focus on vocal factors
• They focus on the content or substance of the
  statement
• They focus on the body, extremities, looking for
  over-control
• They look/listen for non-immediacy, reticence,
  withdrawal, disassociation

• Observers or 3rd parties are better at spotting
  deception than participants

21
false correlates of deception

• eye contact
• smiling
• head movements
• gestures

• postural shifting
• response latency (for rehearsed lies)
• speech rate

22
reliable correlates of deception

• more fidgeting
• greater pupil dilation (5)
• higher blink rate (8)
• pressing lips together
• more shrugs (4)
• more adaptors (14)
• shorter response length, fewer details (17)
• greater lack of immediacy (2)
• raising chin

• more speech errors (12)
• more speech hesitations (11)
• less pitch variation(4)
• more negative statements (5)
• more irrelevant statements (6)
• fewer first person pronouns
• fewer admissions of lack of memory
• fewer spontaneous corrections

note there are no foolproof ways to detect
deception numbers in parentheses indicate how
many studies found a positive correlation with
that particular nonverbal cue
23
In which picture is the female genuinely happy?
A
C
B
D
24
generalizations advice youcan take to the bank

• research consistently demonstrates that people
  are generally unable to detect deception (Miller
  Stiff, 1993)
• 40-70 accuracy
• veracity judgments tend to be based on the wrong
  criteria (Stiff, 1995)
• to detect deception, dont look at the face
• no single indicator proves truth or guilt use
  clusters of indicators, both verbal nonverbal.
• individual differences in deception ability and
  deception detection ability are more important
  than generic factors