'WHO CAN CATCH A LIAR?', Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991.

HARVENUS BAL

P.I. X1538367

TMA 06

BOOK 3 CRITICAL REVIEW

‘WHO CAN CATCH A LIAR?’, Ekman and O’Sullivan, 1991.

What is the definition of lying or indeed deception? Well deception can be defined in many ways, but it was termed by Vrij (Vrij, 2000, p.6) as a successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief, which the communicator considers to be untrue.

Telling lies is a daily life event, which varies in quite complex ways depending on the situation the person is in and the person being lied to. People lie for all kinds of reasons. However half the lies are either self–orientated, and are therefore intended to make the liar appear better or to gain personal advantage (DePaulo et al., 1996). Self– orientated lies consist of people lying in order to avoid punishment, to make a positive impression on others or to protect themselves. Some lies are other–orientated, to make another person feel better or for another’s benefit.

How can you tell if someone is lying to you? People generally believe that nonverbal cues to deception exist and they know what these cues are; but how accurate are people at detecting lies?

In laboratory studies concerning detection of deception, observers are given videotaped or audiotaped statements of various people who are either lying or telling the truth. After each statement the participant is asked to judge whether the statement are true or false.

In most studies reported, people have not been very good at judging when people are lying. Average accuracy in detecting deceit has rarely been above 60% with 50% being chance and most people have performed below 50%.

Studies revealed that in three separate experiments conducted by Kraut and Poe (1980) DePaulo and Pfeifer (1986) and Kohnken (1987) that professional lie catchers such as customs officials and police officers were no better at detecting deception than a average layman. Accuracy rates were in the 45% to 60% range, which replicates what has been found in studies with college students.

However DePaulo and Pfeifer (1986) was the only study, which found noticeable difference in behaviour when the person told the truth or lied.

Later Ekman et al (1988) argued that high stake lies might result in fraudulent facial emotional expressions, also referred to as micro – expressions. Theses are a facial expression that are displayed for only a fraction of a second but clearly reveals the liars true feelings. There are also considerable differences between in a fake facial expression and a genuine one.

The current study therefore sets out to predict that people who were accurate at detecting ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

However DePaulo and Pfeifer (1986) was the only study, which found noticeable difference in behaviour when the person told the truth or lied.

The current study therefore sets out to predict that people who were accurate at detecting lies would use more nonverbal clues compared to those who ere inaccurate, they would also be more accurate at detecting micro-expressions.

509 people participated in the study and were then categorised into 7 prominent groups based on their profession. The groups included US secret service, federal

polygraphers, judges, police, psychiatrists, special interest groups and undergraduate students.

Researchers measured how well each group could detect deceit based upon demeanour, in particular brief facial expression (micro expressions). Participants were viewed 10 videotapes lasting one minute of young college age women. One half of the women were describing their positive feelings of watching a nature film they said they had seen and the rest watched a gruesome film and therefore lied about their positive feelings of watching a nature film.

After watching each interview, participants had 30 seconds to decide if the subjects were telling the truth or lying. However after the second and the eighth videotape, participants stated their reasons for deciding the honesty or deceptiveness of the interview; to which the written responses were categorised using a coded system.

Since some subjects watched a gruesome film instead of a nature film, ethical concerns may be raised. Ethical principles of psychologists and psychological associations state that participants involved in studies should not experience more distress in a experiment than can be reasonably be expected in daily lives. Although the researchers in this study would have taken this into account, it has been failed to mention if whether the women who watched the gruesome films were in any ways distressed. It may therefore be a possibility that signs of deception were more likely to

occur when the deceiver (women who watched the gruesome films but lied about their positive feelings of watching a nature film) experienced strong emotions and therefore also induced strong emotions when being recorded on videotape. It needs to be taken into account that nonverbal behaviours reflect feelings or emotions more directly than specific intentions to deceive. Emotions – psychological states – can be considered as intervening variables, relating to inferred intentions and to observed behaviours; as suggested in case of the women watching the gruesome films.

The methods and procedures employed in the current research have been clearly and concisely described, with relevant headings and graphs to outline the main aims of the experiment. Therefore valid information has been included which allows the research to be replicated with sufficient ease.

It was found that the only group that displayed any increased accuracy in predicting liars from non-liars was that of the Secret Service agents. Approximately 53% of the agents could pick out the liar at least 70% of the time. It is hypothesized that the Secret Service agents utilized nonverbal cues more effectively because of the constant demand for them to scan large crowds to identify possible law-breakers. It was

further evident that within each group, many individuals accurately observed between honest and untruthful subjects. It was also found that the people who accurately observed the deceitful people relied on nonverbal behaviour to a greater extent than those who did not.

There was no significant correlation between accuracy in detecting deception and sex, ages and years of job experience. Although sufficient data is presented and supported by relevant evidence it does in some parts fail to link with earlier research, which could have been dealt with in more detail. However the authors do provide a clear presentation of all the findings with appropriate headings and links the findings with the aim of the study.

Upon closer examination of the results of accurate detectors reveal, however maybe that the critical variable maybe job function. People in jobs, which they must interact with others on a regular basis (such as secret service agents, judges and psychiatrists) that were better detectors than those in administrative positions. The former tended to be younger than the latter due at least in part to promotions of relatively older workers to administrative positions. In addition with regards to job tasks, frequent social interaction helps people to detect deceivers; which however suggested otherwise in previous studies.

The study does to a considerable address the research aims specified. Positive correlations were found between the exactness in identifying the emotion and the accuracy in judging liars. Also mentioning the fact that those who did detect deception used the nonverbal cues and proficient at interpreting facial expressions.

The authors have therefore revealed that some lie catchers can catch liars.

I thought it was rather fascinating to discover how the authors found that age was negatively correlated with accuracy. At first this seemed counter – intuitive, but then I thought about all the individual differences that can potentially come into play, and how possibly being familiar with the person may make it easier to tell when they are lying, as opposed to unfamiliar people. Maybe this familiarity extends to social/age group as well. Perhaps the older participants had more trouble judging the college age women in the videotapes in part because they are less familiar with the age group and their baseline behaviours they exhibit when not lying. Are there enough cultural differences between age groups for this to be an explanation?. Might these older participants have performed more accurately had the people in the videotapes been closer to their age group?

Issues such as the above have failed to be examined or indeed discussed in the appropriate section of the study, therefore this could be an area that could be further explored in the future.

On the whole in conclusion, the study has established the extent to which people are able to detect lies by observing physiological responses. Mistakes in lie detection are inevitable, but perhaps with the correct training, experience and motivation we may become specialists in detecting lies. But is this possible?.

In my opinion in both theoretical and practical terms; this is a sound work on a vital subject. Although room for further research is needed.