Polygraph Week Flashcards
Deception Definition
A successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue (Vrij, 2008)
Main Types of Lies (Vrij, 2008)
Outright lies
Exaggerations
Concealments
Outright lies
Complete fabrications
Lying to partner about where you are when you are having an affair
High difficulty
Exaggerations
Exaggerating a point such as how much experience you have at a job interview
Moderate difficulty
Concealments
‘Forgetting’ to mention something such as alcohol at customs
Lower difficulty
Use of lies (general statement)
The ability to deceive is useful in everyday social situations.
Diary study (DePaulo et al., 1996)
Method
Participants reported all lies from interactions 10 minutes or more in length
Diary study (DePaulo et al., 1996)
Frequency
Students told 2 lies per day on average
Non-Students told 1 lie per day
34% of all interactions contained at least 1 lie
Diary study (DePaulo et al., 1996)
Reasons
50% self-serving
25% other oriented
67% outright lies
60% psychological reasons
40% materialistic reasons
Low stake lies (DePaulo et al. 1996) example
I told her she looked good when she didn’t
High stake lies (DePaulo et al. 1996) definition
Most often originate from behaviour which the target of the lie would perceive as bad
High stake lies (DePaulo et al., 1996) reasons
20% to avoid punishment or blame (highest stress)
32% Instrumental lies (material gain, personal pleasure) – (lowest stress).
29% Psychological (Protect self, hurt others)
10% Protect others
Kraut (1980) - detecting deception
Looked at 10 studies which had tested lie/truth detection accuracy of observers
57% lies and truths were correctly detected
Vrij (2008) - detecting deception
Compared 39 studies conducted after 1980
56.6% lies and truths correctly detected.
Bond & DePaulo (2006) - detecting deception
Compared accuracy using 206 studies between 1941 and 2005.
Overall accuracy = 53.98%
No difference between Experts and Non-Experts
Detection main approaches
Emotional
(Vrij, 2008)
Lying has been associated with increased Fear, Guilt & Excitement compared to truth telling (Ekman, 2001)
Assumption: increases in verbal and non-verbal behaviours which are linked to emotions provide cues to deception
E.g. lack of eye contact due to guilt.
Detection main approaches
Attempted behavioural control
(Vrij, 2008)
Assumption 1: Liars are aware people may monitor their behaviour and so attempt to ‘act’ like a truth teller.
Assumption 2: Some cues (e.g. speech rate, facial expressions) are very hard to control consciously. Attempts to do so may give the liar away through ‘unnatural’ behaviour.
Detection main approaches
Cognitive effort
(Vrij, 2008)
Assumption 1: In some situations telling a lie takes more mental effort than telling the truth.
Assumption 2: Some cues (e.g. speech rate, movements) may increase/decrease when a person experiences high cognitive load.
Result = mental effort may impair motor responses, leading toshowing no physical movements during an interview.
(Non-verbal) Vocal cues
Vrij, 2008
Examples of (Non-Verbal) Vocal cues: (Vrij, 2008)
Speech hesitations (umm)
Speech errors
Changes in voice pitch
Speech rate (words per min)
Latency period
Pause durations
Frequency of pauses
Non-verbal and verbal cues
All three main approaches account for verbal and non-verbal cues to deception
Latency period
Time between end of question and start of answer
How well do vocal (NV) cues fare?
Vrij, 2008
People think more hesitations, speech errors, higher pitched voice and more pauses are indicators.
Actual indicators are higher pitched voice, longer latency period and longer pauses.
(Non-Verbal) Visual cues
Vrij, 2008
Gaze
Self-Adaptors (playing with hair)
Illustrators (arm movements to enhance speech)
Hand and Finger movements
Body movements
Leg/Foot movements
Shifting position
Blinking
How well do Visual (NV) cues fare?
Vrij, 2008
People think poor gaze, self adaptors, body movements, blinking and position shifts suggest deception.
Actual indicators are less hand/finger, left/foot movements and less illustrators.
Verbal cues
Vrij, 2008
Negative statements
Self-references (me, I)
Immediacy (direct/clear not indirect/vague)
Response length
Plausible answers
Consistency in answers
Contradictions in answers
How well do Verbal cues fare?
Vrij, 2008
Pople think less self-references, less immediacy, fewer plausible answers, less consistency and more contradictions suggest deception.
Actual indicators are more negative statements, less immediacy, shorter responses and less plausible answers.
Non-verbal cue evaluation
Vrij (2008)
Not much of what people believe about non-verbal deceptive behaviours matches research.
Difficult to spot in real-time
Slow/complex coding (reliability issues)
Relate more to cognitive effort than arousal
Need to be considered intra-personally
Verbal cue evaluation
Vrij (2008)
Verbal cues offer slightly better diagnostic ability but:
Not reliable
Subject to individual differences
Need also to be considered Intra-personally
Not easily coded in real time
Coders can be subjective