definition of deception
an act INTENDED to foster in another, a belief than the deceiver considers false
key
conscious delberate intention
deceptions dual nature
communication of specific info, and metacommunication about the truth value of the content
deception v. leakage cues
- deception cues: info that gives away the falsehood
- leakage cues: info that gives away the true info
Cue competition
when verbal and nonverbal signs carry implications that are at odds
*detection apprehension
fear of being caught at telling a lie
*The Othello Error
occurs when a lie catcher fails to consider that a truthful person who is under stress may appear to be lying; truthful people may be afraid of being disbelieved (Ex: nervous even though not guilty, police example)
underlying emotional factors in deception
- fear (detection apprehension)
- guilt (deception guilt)
- excitement (duping delight, ex: Rope by Hitchcock, Tell Tale Heart, invited police over)
why do most lies fail?
-either inadequate preparation or the interference of emotions
theoretical approaches to deception (4)
- attempted control (lacking in spontaneoity)
- arousal (lying makes people aroused, will amp up nonverbal behaviors)
- affect (lots of emotions, especially when stakes are hight)
- cognitive load (lying is difficult, easier to tell the truth, have to keep story straight)
humans are poor lie detectors- Vrij, 2000 study
- reviewed 40 studies
- 67% accuracy for detecting truths
- 44% for detecting lies
- high accuracy for truth, low for lies= “truth bias”
- we assume people tell us the truth
humans as poor lie detectors- Bond and DePaulo, 2006
- results from 206 reports and 24,483 judges
- people achieve an average of 54% correct lie-truth judgments
- correctly classifying 47% of lies as deceptive and 61% of truths as non deceptives
human as poor lie detectors- 2008, Bond and DePaulo
- reviewed 142 studies
- 19,801 judges
- mean accuracy of 54.05% in discriminating lies from truths
- mean of 55.5% accuracy for truth judgements
Conclusion of humans as poor lie detectors
- people do not do much better than chance at detecting deception
- people typically report extremely high confidence in their detection ability, this is misplaced confidence (bad, but think they are good)
How good are the pros?
- students interviewed twice by police officers
- in both interviews, denied having a pair of headphones, when in fact they really did in one of the interviews
- 360 police watched the video taped interviews
- accuracy rates low
- in the BEST condition, police performed at 60%
- their confidence was high
- the correlation between their confidence and actual ability to detect deception was r=.04 (virtually 0, hardly any relationship whatsoever)
1995 truth bias
- people are especially likely to judge familiar vs. unfamiliar persons as truthful
- “my partner has been honest in the past, therefore they are being truthful now”
detecting deception in children
- induced 3-7 year olds to lie
- temptation resistance paradigm
- college students watched video taped interrogation
- 3-7 year olds have not fully developed their deception skills
- however, judges could only accurately detect liars based on nonverbal cues
is anyone good at detecting lies?
- NO, no compelling evidence that some people are good and others not
- the standard deviation of judges detection abilities is only 1%, someone at the 86th percentile of detection ability is only 1% better than someone at the 16th percentile
why are humans poor lie detectors?
- lack of motivation to catch liars (ostrich effect)
- absence of Pinocchio’s nose (single cue that indicates lying)
- countermeasures (deliberately attempt to conceal lies, appear credible)
- embedded lies (embedded with truth-most truths)
- no adequate feedback (not instant or immediate, may never know)
- violation of conversational rules
- good liars (sociopaths, pathological liars)
common errors in lie detection
- examining the wrong cues
- overemphasis on nonverbals
- the othello error
- overconfidence in lie detection abilities
- use of heuristics
- neglect of interpersonal differences (naturally fidgety, eye contact, etc.)
the following are significantly associated with deception
- providing fewer details
- making less sense
- internal discrepancies
- repetitions
- less verbal/vocal involvement
- fewer illustrators
- less verbal immediacy
- pupil dialation
- increased vocal pitch (hardest to control)
- THESE WILL BE ON TEST
following NOT associated with deception
- eye contact
- speech disturbances
- smiling
- silent pauses
- head nods
- response latency
- shrugs
- posture shifts
- speech rate
- foot/leg movements
- response duration
- self-fidgeting
detecting deceptive communication
- 73 nurses watched video
- they were interviewed and had to either tell a truth about the video or lie
- liars: fewer illustrators and hand movements, more ah-speech disturbances, and longer response latencies than truth tellers
- using these 4 NV behaviors, 71% of truth tellers and 85% of liars were correctly classified
be attentive to microexpressions
- momentary expressions of facial emotion
- squelched almost immediately
- insight into underlying emotion
