deception Flashcards
1
Q
pragmatic goals of deception
A
- avoid negative outcomes
- gain sympathy
- acquire desirable outcomes
2
Q
COLD (contextual organization of language and deception) framework
A
- three aspects of context that may impact the relationship between deception and communication
- psychological dynamics (emotional and cognitive experiences of a liar)
- pragmatic goals (what the sender is trying to accomplish)
- genre conventions (norms for communicating within a community)
3
Q
interpersonal deception theory
A
- considers the context of interpersonal and intergroup interactions and and perceptions
- deception consensus effect: a person’s rate of deception is correlated with their perceptions of dishonesty within the relevant setting
- settings perceived as related to higher rates of deception are associated with: higher rates of deception and perceiving deception
4
Q
cues to deception
A
- verbal
- paraverbal
- nonverbal
5
Q
verbal cues to deception
A
- characteristics of the wording
- ie. clarity, certainty, emotionality
- deceptive senders were perceived as less clear and direct, emotional, plausible, logical
- deceptive senders were perceived as more uncertain, internally discrepant (contradicting messages)
6
Q
paraverbal cues to deception
A
- vocal cues that accompany speech
- ie. length of message, rate of speech, pauses
- people who were lying spoke in a higher pitch, demonstrated a greater response latency (longer to start responding)
- other paraverbal cues were not significant predictors
7
Q
nonverbal cues to deception
A
- behavioural cues
- ie. nodding, gaze aversion, smiling, manipulators, avoid eye contact
- when people are lying, nodding, hand/leg/food movements occur less often
- other nonverbal cues were not significant predictors
8
Q
perceptions of deception
A
- motivated liars are more likely to be identified as deceptive (may display more signs of fear/nervousness)
- planned messages appear more truthful than unplanned messages
9
Q
human lie detectors
A
- people with occupational expertise are not better than non-experts at distinguishing lies from truth, including police, judges and psychiatrists
- 54% accuracy overall
10
Q
confidence in deception detection
A
- deception detection accuracy is not related to confidence
- people tend to be more confident than accurate
- more confident people are likely to present with truth bias
- confidence increases as the closeness of the relationship with the sender increases
- men more confident about their deception judgments (not more accurate)
11
Q
truth bias
A
- a tendency to interpret more messages as truthful
- classification of statements was correct for 61.3% of truthful messages and 47.6% of deceptive messages
12
Q
generalized communicative suspicion
A
- bias toward interpreting a message as deceptive
- present in experienced police investigators
13
Q
increasing accuracy
A
- objective detection through concurrent consideration of multiple cues: visual, written, speech, vocal, global impression (in general how they are coming across)
- this approach increases the accuracy to 67%
14
Q
increasing accuracy: training
A
- three components to effective training: signs of deception, practice in recognizing signs of deception, feedback on perceivers’ impressions of truthfulness (what do they do when they tell the truth, like their name, vs what had happened)
15
Q
increasing accuracy: training effectiveness
A
- perceivers with no experience in deception detection, increasing accuracy of detecting lies but not truths, detecting lies about opinions and feelings than transgressions (the behaviour; what they are in trouble for)
16
Q
increasing accuracy: cognitive load
A
- lying requires more mental effort than truth-telling
- interviewing techniques can be used to increase the mental effort required to tell a story: having them tell it backwards, asking unanticipated questions, asking for more details, having the interviewee concurrently engage in another task
- increases the accuracy of detecting both lies AND truths
17
Q
limitations
A
- limitations to current research
- file drawer problem: only statistically significant results are published; the other ones aren’t so studies may be done over and over again
- populations studies (ie. uni students) need to be better generalizable to criminal offenders
- variability across studies: need to find where availability is coming from and what causes them to truly understand deception
