MICROANALYSIS AND THE DETECTION OF DECEPTION

1
MICROANALYSIS AND THE DETECTION OF DECEPTION

• Peter Bull Tom WilliamsonDepartment of
  Psychology
• University of York

2
INTRODUCTION

• Microanalysis detailed (micro) analysis of
  film, audio video-recordings.
• Summary of talk
• Principles of microanalysis.
• Traditional psychological research on nonverbal
  behaviour deception.
• Illustrative example - interview with Tony Blair.
• Microanalysis of deceptive nonverbal behaviour.

3
1. MICROANALYSIS

• Research in a number of academic disciplines
• Video-recorder likened to the microscope
• Recorded data can be repeatedly examined.
• Communication can be an object of study
• Microanalysis distinctive both as a methodology
  and as a way of thinking about communication.

4
KEY CONCEPTS IN MICROANALYSIS

• Communication can be studied as an activity in
  its own right.
• All features of interaction are potentially
  significant.
• Communication has a structure, best studied in
  naturally occurring situations.
• It can be regarded as a form of action.
• It can be regarded as a form of skill which can
  be taught.

5
2. NONVERBAL BEHAVIOUR AND DECEPTION

• 1. Uses techniques derived from traditional
  experimental psychology
• Quantification
• Laboratory experimentation
• 2. Fails to reflect contemporary thinking about
  interpersonal communication.
• 3.Old-fashioned, outmoded, and seriously in need
  of radical overhaul.

6
REVIEW OF RESEARCH

• VRIJ (2000) tabulates 44 studies of non-vocal
  non-verbal behaviour during deception
• Smiling
• Gaze, blinking
• Various forms of body movement
• Results tabulated according to whether behaviours
  increase, decrease, or show no relationship with
  deception.

7
CRITIQUE OF NONVERBAL DECEPTION RESEARCH

• Typified by crude code and count forms of
  quantification.
• No attention paid to the social context or
  content of what is said.
• Interdependence of nonverbal behaviour and speech
  repeatedly demonstrated
• (e.g., Kendon, 2004 Bavelas Chovil, 2000).

8
A. NONVERBAL BEHAVIOUR AND SPEECH

• Temporal coordination.
• Meaning. Nonverbal behaviour and speech interact
  to produce more complex units of meaning.
• Gestures indicate how an utterance is to be
  taken.
• Gestures parse the structure of speech.
• These structural features will not show up in
  code and count studies.

9
B. LABORATORY EXPERIMENTATION

• Artificiality.
• Stake or interest (Frank Ekman, 1997)
  (consequences of lie detection)
• Laboratory lies.
• Real-life lies.
• Fear of detection may be manifest in nonverbal
  behaviours.
• Good reasons for studying nonverbal behaviour in
  naturally occurring contexts.

10
3. AN EXAMPLE INTERVIEW WITH TONY BLAIR

• Televised interview from last years general
  election.
• Shows Tony Blair sweating
• Daily Mail sweating is evidence of deceitfulnes

11
GP APPOINTMENT TIMES

• Government target maximum 48-hour wait.
• Appointments not permitted 48 hours.
• GP practices now claim they are meeting
  targets.
• Tony Blair unaware of this practice.

12
SWEATING LYING

• Daily Mail - sweat means lying.
• Contextual information not reported.
• Alternative view - Blair unprepared for
  questions on appointment times.
• Sweating indicates not deceit but panic.
• Daily Mails analysis cf. psychological
  studies of nonverbal behaviour.
• .

13
MICROANALYSIS DECEPTION DETECTION

• New approach required
• Speech nonverbal behaviour treated as a unified
  whole.
• cf. the idea of body language - separate from
  and beyond speech.

14
MICROEXPRESSIONS

• Brief expressions - a fraction of a second before
  being suppressed.
• Tests pictures shown at very short exposures
  (1/25th of a second).
• Performance correlates positively and
  significantly with accuracy in lie detection
  (e.g., Frank Ekman, 1997).
• Can be analysed in terms of inappropriateness
  inconsistency.

15
CONCLUSIONS

• Psychological research on nonverbal behaviour
  deception
• Old-fashioned and out of date.
• Results confused contradictory.
• We propose an integrated message perspective.
• Microanalysis of microexpressions in relation to
  both social context and the content of speech.

16
REFERENCES

• Bavelas, J.B. Chovil, N. (2000). Visible acts
  of meaning an integrated message model of
  language in face-to-face dialogue. Journal of
  Language and Social Psychology, 19, 163-194.
• Bull, P. (2002). Communication under the
  Microscope The Theory and Practice of
  Microanalysis. London Psychology Press.
• Ekman, P. OSullivan, M. (1991) Who can catch a
  liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.

17
REFERENCES

• Frank, M.G. Ekman, P. (1997) The ability to
  detect deceit generalises across different types
  of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and
  Social Psychology, 72, 1429-1439.
• Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture Visible Action as
  Utterance. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University
  Press.

18
REFERENCES

• McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind What Gestures
  Reveal About Thought. Chicago University of
  Chicago Press.
• Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting Lies and Deceit.
  Chichester John Wiley Sons Ltd.