Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
74 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is Deception |
- an attempt to mislead another person by either concealing or falsifying information - a successful or UNSUCCESSFUL, deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue - can be successful or unsuccessful because you still lied.. |
|
|
Types of Lies 1. Outright Lies AKA Falsification |
- information conveyed is completely different or contradictory to deceiver believes is truth -eg. suspect who's guilty assuring police he didn't commit the crime |
|
|
2. Exaggerations |
- facts are overstated or information is conveyed that exceeds the truth
- EG. embellish the amount of remorse they feel for a crime. |
|
|
3. Subtle Lies |
- Literal truths that are designed to mislead EG. Bill Clinton- I did not have sexual relations with that women (he didn't have sex with her but he still had sexual contact |
|
|
Specific Types of Lies: kinds can overlap their not mutually exclusive 1. White lies 2. Humorous lies |
1. Designed to "oil the wheels" of social interaction. Say them all the time, to be nice, not offend, hey how are you doing? good thanks you 2. to amuse another person, make up story/event, dating scenarios |
|
|
3. Altruistic lies 4. Aggressive lies |
3.to benefit someone else overall. Group project lie to cover up for someone. 4. to hurt someone or gain advantage. EG rumours Kp's on cocaine and pregnant |
|
|
5. Defensive Lies |
- in order to avoid punishment or cover up something they've done. - evade responsibility |
|
|
Lying in the Courtroom (Def lies) |
- Typically "DEFENSIVE" lies: eg. false alibi- create an alibi situation that we weren't involved in -sometimes lie to implicate another person eg. an informant- motivation to lie- leniency/yard time in jail |
|
|
Variations of Deception (Forensic Context) 1. Omission of information 2. Denial |
1. last night, i was home by 9pm. KP smoking pot eg. could have left at 10pm to kill someone
2. I have not even been near an elementary school since I was released 6 months ago |
|
|
3. Degree of rehabilitation 4. Fabrication of an event |
3. I have not had a deviant fantasy in six months. That treatment really helped me, i've seen a real change in my behaviour 4. i went to apply for a job today... Here is how it went |
|
|
Reasons WHY ppl lie 5 top reasons 1-3: SELF ORIENTED 1. PA 2. AP 3. |
1. Personal advantage. conceal the financial state of affairs so ppl invest in you 2. avoid punishment 3. positive impressions/ protect self from embarrassment or disapproval |
|
|
4. APB- OTHER oriented 5. SR- SELF AND OTHER oriented |
4. Another person's benefit- mom lies to protect son 5. Social relationships. doing it to be polite but also for own benefit to make comfortable and avoid confrontation |
|
|
6th Reason |
To prevent a GREATER evil. -eg. mom come to hid kids but dad comes to kill them, would you let them in? -you lie to avoid them being killed |
|
|
Paradox of Deception |
- although most ppl believe that they are GOOD lie detectors, for POOR liars the opposite is true, bad at telling when others are lying - most ppl are POOR lie detectors but quite proficient at lying - most ppl are effective liars - bad at telling when strangers are lying- better at telling when we know the person |
|
|
Frequency of Deception |
- lying VERY common - college/ uni students- avg 2 lies per day, put ppl say 3/4 per 15 min interaction - community members avg 1 lie per day |
|
|
Variations in Frequency Depend on different factors |
1. personality- extroverts more than introverts 2. gender- no diffs in frequency, women tell more social lies 3. context- dating- women increase lies about appearance, men increase lies about success/career 4. Recipient- least with spouses, most with strangers, college students tend to lie a lot with moms |
|
|
Deception Detection |
- documented as an important task throughout history - one of the earliest recorded records is the BIBLICAL STORY OF KING SOLOMON - will the real mother pls stand up (slim shad) |
|
|
King Solomon |
- decide which of the 2 women were the infants true mother - only solution was to cut the kid in half to split it - the real mother was the one who would object and say NO, that was the real mother |
|
|
Deception Detection Through History 1. Rice Test (China) |
- Suspects forced to chew and spit our rice or rice powder during questioning - if rice is DRY-- GUILTY/lying |
|
|
2. Hot iron Test (Arabia) |
- suspects forced to lick a hot iron rod - the one with the most severely burned tongue was guilty. lying |
|
|
3. Trials by Ordeal |
- trial by piece of bread and cheese -forced to swallow it, if item stuck to tongue and throat then- GUILTY/lying |
|
|
all 3 have in common- rice, hot iron and ordeal salv inhb |
SALIVARY INHIBITION- mouth goes dry because either nervous or lying |
|
|
4. Polygraph- John larson- 1920 5. Psychological Research- 1960 |
other trials - sink and float- impurities float, sunk you told truth - hot cauldron trial- trial by hot water- fish rings out of boiling water, arm wrapped and after 3 days if arm had healed- innocent, if not- guilty |
|
|
Deceit is NOT easy to detect |
-some valid clues have been discovered but most clues that supposedly work don't EG. eye movements/ gaze aversion, hand movements - many studies find the opposite |
|
|
DECEIT |
- deception is associated with significantly FEWER hand/arm movements and MORE eye contact- they look you in the eye to gauge if you're believing it -there is no "LIE RESPONSE"- no typical pattern or response - determination of truth requires considerable knowledge, open mind, skill |
|
|
Errors in Detecting Deceit 1. OE 2. BH |
- two types of errors that can occur when attempting to determine if someone is being deceptive |
|
|
1. Othello error |
- emotional arousal interpreted as sign of guilt/ deception
- nervous behaviour because ppl are anxious they are being interrogated not because they are guilty |
|
|
2. Brokaw Hazard |
- convoluted/ evasive speech interpreted as sign of guilty -around in circles with their answers, disrupted speech patterns |
|
|
Problem with both errors is that they fail to |
CONSIDER A PERSONS BASELINE - what we are looking for in detection- is an individuals deviation from their normal, baseline behaviour- how do they act when normally stressed out, and how are they acting different now when being interrogated |
|
|
Beliefs about Deception Detection Prominent myths about deception |
- False beliefs about lying interfere with detection 1. There is a single specific sign that everyone shows when lying 2. signs of nervousness are consistently reliable cues to deception |
|
|
High stakes lies |
- being interrogated to cover up a crime, or tell the truth is a high stakes lie, being in an experiment and asked to lie about yourself is not the same- low stakes |
|
|
1. Non Verbal Cues A. body language B. Facial Expressions |
1. Body Language - illustrators decrease when lying, controllable eg. hand gestures and finger movements - nervous habits, some increase, some decrease eg. eye blinking, speech problems - studies criticize low stakes lies, illustrators- actions you engage in to illustrate a point, KP CANT NOT use illustrators, you can tell she's lying when she's not illustrating |
|
|
B facial expressions 1. false smiles 2. Microexpressions |
A. False smiles- Kp's dad when he hids mugs 1 DUCHENE SMILE- genuine smile, crinkle in eyes, face and eyes smile 2. PAN AM smile- FAKE- ekman- facial action loading- each emotion has a number of action units: specifically tied to muscular thing in face- consistent across all cultures |
|
|
MicroExpressions |
- leakage for micro- seconds - extremely brief 1/250 of a second exist on face before we get voluntary control of our face -immediate reaction to emotional stimuli, emotional leakage - decent at telling when someone is lying |
|
|
Are non-verbal cues useful? |
problems: othello error - they can be FAIRLY reliable BUT.. - can be difficult to train professionals - no typical nonverbal response during deception (high stakes lie more important to control behaviour) -depends on emotions, content complexity, attempted behavioural control - |
|
|
Why the lack of NV findings? |
1. Truth tellers may show similar behaviours to liars - they experience emotion- anxiety/fear - may try to control actions/behaviour out of fear or not being believed |
|
|
2. |
2. Research samples often biased and more laboratory based - 'stakes' in deception not high - real life situations difficulty- establishing ground truth - no consequence |
|
|
EG. Saddam Hussein |
-Davis and Hadik's -studied Saddam's non verbal behaviour when he lied in CNN interview in the gulf war crisis - fabricated several times- including answer about iraqi planes landing in Iran - he refrained from using hand movements/ illustrators which he frequently used |
|
|
2. VERBAL CUES |
- focus on what the person says and how they say it - meta analysis by Zuckerman and Driver- 1985 indicated that verbal cues are more reliable than NV cues |
|
|
however... |
-recent reviews still say no typical verbal response to deception - in legal cases, often the only evidence is the words of the complainant and defendant - analysis of verbal behaviour can be admissible in court |
|
|
VC |
- also based on physiological arousal- voice stress analysis - tones and characteristics of voice pitch - can't differentiate between lying and nervous - still based on physiological stress cues which can be present in both truths and lies |
|
|
Criteria- Based Content Analysis CBCA |
list of 19 verbal criteria expected to be present more in truthful statements than in deceptive statements |
|
|
CBCA based on |
based on UNDEUTSCH hypothesis 1967- statements about self experienced events differ in content and quality from fabricated statements - some of criteria seem to reliably distinguish only assessing for truth - someone being truthful more likely to admit they don't remember some stuff and have gaps |
|
|
CRITERIA of CBCA |
criteria 0-2 1. less unstructured production 2. logical structure 3. quantity of detail 4. contextual embedding (not part of experience, we naturally have in our genuine memory) 5. description of interaction 6. reproduction of speech 7. unusual details 8. spontaneous correction 9. admissions of memory loss |
|
|
Porter et al (1999) found that... |
When lying about personal experiences that had not happened, people tended to: - provide too much detail - repeat information - claim that the memory is extremely vivid/ exaggerate - rarely admit not remembering something - use more word pauses (ummm) - speak more slowly -engage in more eye contact - LIARS protest too much |
|
|
Kp's Follow up research on providing too much detail (Peace and Porter 2011) |
- greater details in lies for personal experiences is only maintained in short term - lies lose detail over time and become 'rote' - they had grandiose stories and lies and over time it fades |
|
|
verbal cues- anecdotal evidence |
- anecdotal evidence Adolph Eichmanns interrogation: -Interrogated eichmann for 500 hours after his capture in 1963 - protesting way too much - saying never, never, no! not anytime |
|
|
3. Fact Pattern Analysis (stop looking for individual cues and start looking for broader patterns to deception |
- no ONE behaviour associated with deception - they are statistically associated - need to look at the whole pattern of facts and findings and consider all the evidence -generate multiple hypotheses regarding credibility (be a critical thinker) |
|
|
Blob Analysis |
- modern approach - digital encoding patterns of movement - motion capturing in deception - hollistic blob patterns that tell when you're lying |
|
|
Physiological Cues to Deception |
- pupil dilation (increases) - perspiration (increases) - pitch of voice (tends to increase) problem with these 3 is that they are also indicators of arousal/nervousness in general |
|
|
ERP patterns (and 'no lie MRI) |
- guilty knowledge ERP aka- brain fingerprinting- leaving a fingerprint in brain - view stimulus and brain wave either occurs or doesn't -ERP- event related potential P300- recognition wave in response to stimuli - if you don't recognize the stimuli no p300- you've never seen stimuli before -PROBLEM: context of weapon can be shown and anybody can recognize a gun if they own one at home |
|
|
4. Physiological Cues: POLYGRAPHY 3 main types of tests |
- polygraph does not detect lies, but detects physiological state associated with lying - eg. heart rage, respiration, skin conductance, blood pressure |
|
|
1. The relevant/irrelevant test |
- ask 2 types of questions- those relevant to crime and those not relevant - if response to relevant is greater than to irrelevant- this means deception/guilty - EG. rel- did you stab bob, IRR- do you live in canada - problem because irrelevant cues are not arousing |
|
|
2. Control question test CONTROL- arousing to make you nervous but not relevant to case (guilty if rel> control) |
- most common and most problematic - 10 yes/no questions- relevant and irrelevant - control questions refer to hose that would be arousing for everyone and tend to deal with a persons honesty/ past history GUILT-- greater response to relative over control questions CONTROl- have you ever lied or smoked pot before rel- did you kill bob irr- do you live in canada |
|
|
Criticisms of control test |
-the control q will never be sufficiently the same arousal as telling someone and be completely non crime related at the same time |
|
|
3. Guilty knowledge test |
- better but not really that good -based on the idea of determining if there is increased arousal for information only the perpetrator would know - hold back details from media and test this knowledge with other comparable knowledge EG. do you know whether the weapon used was? knife, rope, shotgun, paper clip -if you say no to each, only the killer would know which one it was, normal person would get same arousal for all, killer get increased arousal for the weapon. |
|
|
Counter measures |
- alternative experience/event to increase your physiological arousal -use CM to increase their arousal on control questions to control> relevant, so they will be diagnosed as innocent if response is greater to control> relevant- artificially increasing arousal |
|
|
CLASSIC e.g. of counter measures |
- tack in show - copper penny in the mouth - toothpaste -clenching bum cheeks -tension/ induction in face/jaw - imagination induction |
|
|
Counter- Counter measures |
- butt cushion to see if you're clenching cheeks |
|
|
Usefulness of the Polygraph STRENGTHS |
- low false negatives rate false negative: rate of those who are truly guilty being considered innocent by polygraph. Poly catches most ppl who are guilty - good at eliciting confessions |
|
|
WEAKNESSES of POLY |
- stress and lying show similar physiological response - high false positive rate false positive" rate of those that are truly innocent being considered guilty, high rate of putting innocent ppl as guilty - counter measures can BEAT polygraph - not admissible in court |
|
|
True neg/pos False neg/pos |
True negative: polygraph says innocent- you are actually innocent true positive- poly says guilty, you are truly guilty False positive: those that are truly innocent being considered guilty false neg- those that are guilty being considered innocent |
|
|
Deception in other populations |
- most research has NOT used forensic samples but has used convenience samples instead (e.g. students) - this may lead to problems of ecological validity -should test deception in relevant populations (offender population, psychopaths) |
|
|
Forensic samples |
- actually testing cues and characteristics of low steaks lies - you don't care about experiment- doesnt matter if you get caught because no consequences lack of ground truth- you don't know what happened in the original event |
|
|
Psychopaths: Consummate Deceivers |
-pathological or at least practiced liars - compulsion to lie without obvious external motivation - adept at manipulation/ conning - little anxiety while lying - smooth, persuasive talkers/good actors |
|
|
Is it possible to tell when Psychopaths are lying |
- psychopaths who committed murder are TWICE as likely to change versions of the events over time during their incarceration (just because they want to) |
|
|
Detecting Deception in Psychopaths |
- no better than non psychopaths at beating polygraph - weaknesses: compulsive lying and DUPING DELIGHT - in an interview, ask about factual info you already know - obtain as much detail as possible and have multiple interrogations- let them set their own trap - feed them false info. watch for their incorporation good at avoiding questions- take careful notes |
|
|
Duping Delight |
- psychopaths actually experience increase in arousal when they lie because they ENJOY it so much - they get giddy which is still arousal - they show the same increase in arousal and get caught the same as non psychopaths |
|
|
Feeding them false info EG kenneth Bianchi |
- hillside strangler -claimed he had dissociative identity disorder- wasn't responsible for murder - police gave him false info in his host state to see if he conformed * host is unaware of the alters but the alters are all aware of each other, - he was aware of the information of alters when in host form and he was caught |
|
|
Judging Deception: Motivated Liars |
Vrij and Mann - exposed police officers to videotaped press conferences of ppl who were asking public to help find their missing relative |
|
|
OUTCOME |
- ALL of those individuals had lied: they were guilty off murdering own relatives - police officers were only able to detect deception at the level of change 50/50 GUESS - act of trying can influence motivation for lying |
|
|
Behaviour of a Motivated Liar |
Vrij and Mann - they also investigated the behaviour of a convicted murder prior to and after confessing |
|
|
Before confessing (while being deceptive) |
- increased gaze aversion - longer pauses - spoke slower - more "ah's" (but need to consider these for an individuals baseline |
|
|
Conclusion |
- absolute conclusions regarding deception detection are difficult to make -some research shows contradictory findings between university samples vs. offender samples - work in progress |
