Deception summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Literature and teaching about lying/deceptions...

Description

DECEPTION THEORETICAL APPROACHES DEFINITION “is a deliberate choice to mislead a target without giving any notification of the intent to do so” (P. Ekman) THE EMOTIONAL APPROACH - Porter et al., (2012) The stronger the emotion the more emotional leakage - fear, guilt, stress, voice pitch, sweating, speech errors COGNITIVE LOAD MODEL Vrij et al (2017) – Meta analysis Lying is mentally demanding - Semantic leakage control: pauses, stillness, less blinking •Ask unanicipated quesions (Vrij et al., 2009) •Strategic use of evidence (Hartwig et al., 2005, 2006) SELF PRESENTATIONAL PERSPECTIVE + WORKING MEMORY MODEL De Paulo et al (2003) – Meta analysis Lie= script. More cog demanding eg. Imagination, script knowledge, fragments of past memories. more pauses and speech errors OBJECTIVE CUES TO DECEPTION? – Reliable cues are scarce - Liars seems more tense, less cooperative, talk for less time + less detail, less direct/personal - Truth tellers correct themselves, say “they don’t know” Not measurable! Not reliable! There are no guidelines/rule of thumb! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------HOW GOOD ARE WE AT DETECTING LIES? Meta-analysis Bond & DePaulo (2006) Total accuracy: 54% (not a good result considering chance is 50% ) Meta-analysis DePaulo et al. (2003) 75% of cues showed no association with deception at all Only 25% showed relationship with deception: gaze aversion, postural shifts, selfreferences – 14/50 cues were related to deception  Cues to deception are generally unreliable and faint POTENTIAL CUES TO DECEPTION 1.Behavioural/ non-verbal (eye contact, sweat, look nervous?) 2.Para-verbal- how quickly they’re speaking, pitch, stuttering, pauses etc. 3.Verbal – purely the words coming out of the person’s mouth People tend to rely on behavioural/non-verbal this is less reliable compared to the others. Eg. We think liars avoid eye contact 1. NON-VERBAL INDICATORS (Porter & ten Brinke, 2010) - Gestures vs. verbal account - decrease in illustrators vs. person’s norm Problem = you’re paying less attention to what the person is actually saying

- Facial Expressions - Smiles include wrinkling around the eyes and cheeks vs. Faked smiles =restricted to mouth, show lower teeth, asymmetrical and negative emotions ( - Micro expressions and emotional leakage -Reliable but difficult with time restraint - TECHNOLOGY: •Thermal imaging (Warmelink, 2011)- 69% for liars; 64% accuracy for TTs But interviewer judgements more accurate (72% & 77%) •Voice stress- detects pitch and stress (slightly better than chance but very flawed) POLIGRAPHS discretion of the examiner– if encourages guilty individuals to confess this is an advantage could lead to false confessions following a false positive. 2. DETECTING DECEPTION FROM VERBAL CONTENT REALITY MONITORIN (RM)- Masip et al (2005) - imagined = reflective, Real = perceptual: more info on taste, touch & smell Overall accuracy of 75%! COMPUTER BASED LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS Vrij et al (2005) - Used to track word count detection accuracy 67% - personal pronouns (less) + negative emotional descriptors (more)- Vocal tremors – not fully accurate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STRATEGIC INTERVIEWING Hartwig et al., (2011) - Lack of valid cues mediocre lie detection + misconceptions COG LOAD APPROACH – Vrij et al (2010) UNANTICIPATED Q’s APPROACH – Vrij et al (2009) THE VERIFIABILITY APPROACH - Vrij et al (2014) – key to deception is detailfind gaps...