Transcript Are the following notions True?

J. P. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
[email protected]
We should spend an equal
time on phenomenology and
MECHANISMS of deception….
…as we do on DETECTION of
deception. But there is a lot more
research-based (real) knowledge
about the latter, so most of the
time, that’s what we will cover.
Regarding detection; there are
two approaches:
1. Behavioral
(a) non-verbal
(b) Verbal
2. Physiological: Nervous
system activity.
….We start with Behavioral:
Are the following notions True?
1. People typically reveal their lies by fidgeting, acting
 nervous, avoiding eye contact, etc.
2. Therefore, we are rather good lie detectors (unless we are
very stupid).
3. This is especially true when we detect lies in those close to
us.
4. Criminals, con-men, professional crooks, and such,
however, are harder to spot for us lay people.
5. Fortunately, trained professionals (police, FBI) are superior
lie detectors, so they protect us against pros.
We wish we
had a
Pinocchio's
nose
indicator
But we don’t…
…NONE of those assertions
is true!
People think they are
great lie detectors.
But they miss many
lies. Why?
 (1a) If someone thinks
you look great, why
argue? (Vrij: Ostrich
effect)
(1b) I’ll ask no
questions……(and hope
you tell no lies!)
Bill to Hillary: “Ah did
not have sex with that
woman…..”
(2) Lie detection is
tough!
 There is no behavioral or
physiological specific index of
deception, though things are not
as bad a Vrij suggests: P300, fMRI
Beware of internet & Media claims!
 Pavlidis’ thermal imaging not so
great…
 BEOS Brain Electrical Oscillations
Signature is Bogus!
 “Brain Fingerprinting?!” (See my
critique….)
How common is lying?
 A) once a year?
 B) once a month?
 C) once a week?
 D) More than daily?
Definition of lying:

OK, give one…
Intentional, without
warning, misinform or
mislead another.
Liar must believe
information is false.
Lie could fail.
(Types of Lies)
From Bad-est to least bad:
 (1) Outright Lie– (total B.S.)
 John Edwards: “I am not the
father of that child, no way, I’ll
happily take a DNA test….”
 Stating “I didn’t do it” while
knowing one did.
(2)Exaggerations (overstatements)
or Minimizations(understatements)
 “I am the most eminently famous
researcher in the Psych.
Department.” (but almost…)
 “This is an important discovery of
mine not yet published” (which
was actually rejected by one
journal and now in review at
another.)
(3) Subtle Lies (Omit details)
 Clinton: “Ah did not have sex
with that woman, Miss
Lewinski…”
 (Not according to the usual
definition: intercourse.)
(4) Concealment…
 “How was your day?…mine
was as usual…”
 [Heaven forbid she asks me
about my day!]
Many reasons:
 (1) Material Gain
 (2) Avoid loss/punishment
 (3) Avoid embarrassment
 (4) Make good impression (&
get the job)
All these involve
gain for oneself.
The other kind of (Otherdirected) Lie:
Altruistic Lies:
“You made a great impression…”
Telling a gravely ill person (child)
that she will be fine..
Why is it hard to know for sure
how often people lie?
Self report fails
because people don’t
want to recall.
But 2+ times a day is a
reasonable occurence.
Whom do people lie to?
Strangers more than
close contacts. (Why?)
(1) Gender:
 Men tell more self-oriented lies.
 Women tell more other oriented
lies
(2) Age
 What is definite minimum age for
lies in children? (2,4,6,8,10)
 What motivates youngest
children’s lies? (Gain of say
cookies? Avoid punishment? Make
a good impression?)
(3) Personality Type
 In romantic relations:
 (a) attachment style: avoidant
(lack of trust, keep people at
distance)…..these folks lie to keep
others at a distance.
Versus
 anxious attachments: lack of selfesteem. These people lie to look
good as they feel bad.
(b) Psychopathy
 The types have no empathy or
sympathy for others. They regard
others as pieces of themselves,
and objects of manipulation—like
their own limbs. These are big
time liars to everyone they might
wish to manipulate. Superficially
charming, they get away with it
for a while…
(c) Extraverts and introverts
 Outward/sociable vs. reserved.
 Which are the bigger liars?
(d) Self-consciousness:
 These are very concerned with
impression they make, so how do
they behave with respect to
deception?
 In this connection, one speaks
also of social anxiety: they lack
self confidence, so they tell tales.
(Are we all on same page? What
are these?)
We wish we
had a
Pinocchio's
nose
indicator
DiPaolo’s group emphasizes 3
theoretical perspectives:
 During deception, 3 phenomena
occur:
 1) emotional reactions: guilt, fear---and delight. (delight?)
 Guilt  low eye contact
 Fear  stuttering, blinks, squeals.
 Delight (of duper) excitement,
inappropriate laughter. (Ekman)
What else does liar experience?
 2) mental demand, also called
cognitive load. Liars will also tend
to look away, so as to concentrate
on made up details. Except when
they monitor you to see if you
believe.
 3) Attempted self control of
behavior to avoid tells. Not easy.
Voices break, facial expressions
occur: Ekman’s micro-expressions.
These are theories of what
should happen. Moreover…
…these effects are affected by
certain factors, e.g.,
 GUILT—The degree of guilt felt
depends on personality. Consider
Psychopathy…. Consider Stakes…
Consider sense of righteousness
or duty felt by CIA agent.
 FEAR– Experienced liars of
whatever breed have less fear.
 EXCITEMENT– helped by audience.
Also, if it’s a big conquest, or else,
no.
More…
 COGNITIVE LOAD--- also depends
on verbal skill-intelligence and
experience. (Vrij is wrong about
Psychopaths feeling less load.)
Degree of rehearsal also makes a
difference (practice makes
perfect!)
 SELF CONTROL depends on
Psychopathy.
Vrij is a pain, but best we
have..(E.g.Box 3.1 p. 47)….
 …and his best statement is on the
top of p. 49. “ …the relationship
between lying and non-verbal
behavior is complex.” The
implications of this statement
regarding development of nonverbal “tells” is what?! (Life is not
Poker.)
Field Studies.(Define.)
 We want to compare liars vs.
truth-tellers, but…
Difficulties:
1)Getting videos: (Are cameras
always running?)
2) Establishing “Ground Truth.”
3) Controls: only possible in lab to
have unconfounded conditions—so
not many field studies re:
nonverbal cues are out there…
OK, how about lab studies?
 Pluses: Ground truth easy to get
by design. Likewise, unconfounded control conditions.
 Minuses: Lies are instructed. So
what happens to guilt? fear? What
happens regarding stakes? You
can offer lots of money, but not
punishment (as in real life).
 DECEPTION HARD TO STUDY!
Bottom Line:
 Vrij’s Appendix 3.1 makes very
clear that there is NO reliable nonverbal sign of deception. There
may be trends and even
significant group effects (explain),
which support theoretical views
noted above…..
**But in D of D, the key statistic is
INDIVIDUAL HIT RATE (as in d’
from SDT).
Dramatically:
Is there such a thing as
“lyin’ eyes?” Are gaze or
eye contact helpful?
Are liars more emotional
than truth tellers? Why or
why not?
Vrij’s “Group Differences”
(p.67)….
Very suspect!
 As is rest of chapter about
Clinton, Saddam Hussein, Huntley.
 Amazing that he says look for the
cluster of c(l)ues to deception, not
single c(l)ues. Which cluster?
“There is no straightforward
answer….”
That is….speech signs…
We wish we
had a
Pinocchio's
nose
indicator
Vrij description of possible
verbal signs (“cues”)…
 ….as in his box 4.1 list is mostly
pathetic, i.e., wrong (imho).
 On the other hand, sometimes one
has to say, “duhhh!” as when he
states that direct statements are
more credible than evasive ones.
 Obviously plausibility helps! As
does consistency (lack of
contradiction).
But Vrij best statement is…
 “As I will demonstrate, a verbal
cue uniquely related to deception,
akin to Pinocchio's growing nose,
does not exist.” (p. 103)
 Again, an appendix(4.1) shows
some trends & group effects as
supporting some views in Box 4.1.
 Again, clusters> singles. But
which cluster? No one knows.
Vrij indulges himself with
many “I think..” type ideas.
 That’s fine. Be sure you do not
confuse these hypotheses for
facts!
 Note: people & researchers
always start out with what
appears obvious, like twitches &
speech signs. These all are
ultimately controllable, unlike
physiology (looking ahead).
Henceforth….
 We will be looking at more
specialized and developed
approaches to detecting
deception. Vrij still likes “more
immediate” (non-physiological)
tools, because they are allegedly
quick, easy, & cheap. Imho, he
stretches things by emphasizing
how laborious some methods are...
OK,
 fMRI requires a $1M+ machine and
an annual budget of >$1M…
 But when Vrij states (p. 189) that
EEG/ERP recording usually
requires 10 or more scalp
electrodes, he exaggerates: 2
(actually 1) will do, and it takes
only 5 minutes to hook up.
 But Vrij & we will go on with SVA,
RM & SCAN, imho, unphysiological
extensions of what we just did…
Reality Monitoring, Statement Validity
Assessment, & Scientific Content
Analysis.
Reality Monitoring…
 RM started not as a DoD method,
but rather as a discipline in
Cognitive Psychology to study on a
theoretical basis, the differences
between perceived versus
imagined experience; as with false
(but honestly believed) memories.
What are the characteristics of
Real versus False Memories…..
 …with regard to:
 Sensory Information?
 Contextual Information?
 Affective information?
 Think of dimensions of clarity
versus vagueness?
 Give examples of what you might
actually remember about an event.
This Q & A system of M.
Johnson sorta works, but…
What happens as time
passes?
So what do you remember
better, last week or when
you were 3?
Actually…
 Actually, it turns out that
Physiology (ERPs) come to the
rescue again regarding false
memories…
 …as we will see later.
If RM is not a perfect false
memory detector, then why..
…would we think this strategy
would be a good deception
detector?
Are there differences between
false memories and deceptions?
HINT: What do subjects believe
about veracity of f.m. and lies?
RM Criteria (after Sporer ‘97)
with some overlap with CBCA
 From Vrij Table 9.1. The first 7 should
be there in true statements.
1. Clarity—clear sharp, vivid statements
2. Perceptual info.—details of smell,
sound, etc.
3. Spatial info.—details of location,
seating arrangement, object location.
4. Temporal Info– When things happened,
and in what order.
(continued…)
Four more…
5. Affect detail—How subject felt:” I was
disgusted when I saw the body…”
6. Reconstructability of the testimony in
detail.
7. Realism: Is the story plausible,
realistic, logical?
8. Cognitive operations. Should be less
in true story: It shouldn’t be necessary
to make inferences: “He appeared
nervous.”
The RM method usually
involves 2+ raters scoring tape.
 Inter-rater reliability should be and
is found by research to be high.
Good as CBCA, anyway.
 Vrij thinks it’s easier to learn and
teach, because…
 There are fewer criteria which are
more concrete and thus less
subject to interpretation.
Vrij’s review of RM research in
Appendix 9.1 has limitations:
 Not all reviewed studies are peer-
reviewed publications.
 Not all studies are given!
 Scoring not standardized.
 Some listings lack inter-rater data.
 Only recent events are studied.
 RM is problematic in children.
 Etc, etc. maybe not important ….
...because:
 Appendix 9.1 shows a mostly
mixed pattern.
 Average accuracy is 68.8 %
overall, which mean many false
alarms (about 29% in truth
tellers) and misses (about 34% in
liars). I.e., group but not individual
results.Yes, RM beats flipping a
coin, but not by much. More work
is needed. (Physiology wins.)
End of RM
“SCAN”
Israeli tool:
Vrij: Widely used, though
Not much researched, nor
endorsed by researchers.
Basic assumption:
 A memory based on actual
experience will differ in content
and “quality” (?) from an invented
or fantasized memory. (Duhhhh!)
 Also problematic: Not all lies are
invented out of whole cloth. Some
are substituted actual memory, as
in most alibis.
Proceedure:
 Suspect writes in handwriting a
statement of events in absence of
investigator (to avoid
contamination).
 Statement is then scored on
several criteria:
The Criteria (+ = seen in truth
tellers. V means vs. CBCA)
1. Direct denials +
2. Specific identifications +
3. Cross-outs(against instructs.) – V
4. Vague memories – V
5. 20-50-30 structure +
6. Emotions +
7. Subj/obj time correspondence +
More….
8. Events in chronological order +
9. Missing info: :”A bit later..” 10. 1st person, present tense +
11. Pronouns “I” Ownership. +
12. Change in language(???):
Change from “conversation” to
“Discussion.” - if not justified. Too
subjective (imho)
Research results with SCAN:
1. Field study: .77 TTs, .88 Liars at
best with Denial criterion.
….But, as with almost all field
studies, no ground truth!!!!! So,
fuggedaboudid!
2. Lab Study(So no ground truth
issue): Three crirteria utterly
failed to discriminate liars and
truth tellers!! So, fuggedaboudid!
Final field study…
 Again no ground truth!!
 Though they claim75% TT
accuracy, 80% liar accuracy.
 Great lack of consistency among
SCAN users: So, fuggedaboudid!
 Bottom SCAN line: Little empirical
support, little standardization.
 Thus the widespread use is stupid.
Based for openers
on Polygraph.
Polygraph:
 Does not mean “lie detector.”
 Means a machine with many
(poly) channels of visually
presented (graphical) information;
in inked paper or laptop display
format.
 A Polygraph machine can be and
is used in many fields of
Psychophysiology
2 Major Protocols currently
used :
 Comparison (“Control”) Question Test
(CQT)-- beloved by enforcers, ‘cuz it’s
easy to use (“Didja do it?”) and tends to
elicit confessions—but hated by
academics who prefer the
 Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT better
known as the Concealed Information
Test (CIT), since knowledge can’t be
guilty (just perps.)
 Both utilize autonomic arousal.
Why do us professors frown on
CQT?
 Pre-test interview cannot be
standardized.
 It compares arousal responses to
relevants. & “controls.”There can
never be true comparison control
questions in the scientific sense
of control.(Yet there could be
better versions.)
 High false positive rate (which CIA
et al. don’t care about….)
Why do we love CIT?
 It compares arousal (?) responses to critical
(probe) and non-critical (irrelevant) stimuli.
 There are usually 6 or more multiple choice
questions with 1 + 5 choices per question.
(Throw away 1st.) Thus for each item, the
P(chance hit) = 1/5=.2
 For 6 INDEPENDENT items, probability of
subject hitting on all 6 by chance =P = .2^6 =
.2 x .2 x .2 x .2 x .2 x .2. Use Bernoulli for
chance hits on < 6. Thus you can reduce the
false positive P as low as you like by adding
independent items (not always so easy).