Behavioural Cues and Emotional Leakage Associated with Deception free essay sample

A question that has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons alike for centuries has been â€Å"is there a discernible way of distinguishing between people who are telling the truth and those who aren’t? † This is an especially important question when put in to the context of the legal system where a person’s guilt or innocence is at stake or where an accused could be falsely convicted or exonerated. The nature of lying is two-pronged, whereby morality and self-service collide; how we feel about deception is highly dependent upon the reason for telling the lie. Everyone lies. In fact, people lie on average twice a day (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, amp; Epstein, 1996) and would rather do so in an effort to censor themselves, then to express their true thoughts for fear of not being perceived in a positive light by others. We tell psychological lies for a number of reasons: to embellish or protect ourselves, to avoid tension or conflict in social interactions, or minimize hurt feelings (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, amp; Epstein, 1996). We will write a custom essay sample on Behavioural Cues and Emotional Leakage Associated with Deception or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page However, forensic context lies are likely to be â€Å"high-stakes†, which carry extreme consequences both for the liar and the target of the lie; for example, lying to conceal infidelity or in the context of violent crime, terrorism, governments, and business/corporations (ten Brinke, L. amp; Porter, S. , 2011). Moreover, contrary to white lies, most high-stakes lies are accompanied by evolutionary developments of unconscious communication of covert information (speech, body language and facial expressions) as well as powerful emotions (such as fear, remorse, anger, or excitement) that must be hidden and/or feigned in a convincing way (ten Brinke, L. , Porter, S. , amp; Baker, A. , 2011). Darwin hypothesised that some facial expressions associated with strong emotional responses were not under voluntary control, could not be completely inhibited and cannot be engaged intentionally during emotional stimulation, forming the inhibition hypothesis (Darwin, 1872), which now gaining support. Consider the case of a mother publicly pleading for the safe return of her daughter who, in reality, she has murdered. The awareness of the potential enormous consequence of getting caught, along with the effort required to monitor one’s verbal cues, body language, facial expressions and stories, put a huge cognitive load on the deceiver. Simply put, it requires more conscious brain power to tell a lie than it is to tell the truth. (http://www. psychologicalscience. org) So while humans are notoriously better liars than lie detectors, deceivers face the challenge of maintaining their credibility (ten Brinke, L. amp; Porter, S. 2011). Furthermore, this cognitive load may result in â€Å"leakage† that may reveal our true emotions and intentions which a trained or scientifically informed observer might be able to pick up on. That is, an observable (and authentic) by-product of over extending cognition resources available to convey elaborate lies. Therefore, because motivated lies of consequence are much more difficult to tell and maintain versus trivial daily deceptions, the researchers hypothesized that serious lies should trigger more subtle, yet detectable behavioural cues or emotional leakage†. Moreover, those facial muscles that are under less cortical control, specifically the â€Å"grief† muscles, would more often contract in the faces of genuine pleaders versus the deceivers. They further proposed that deception is a fundamental aspect of human behaviour and communication that likely emerged early in human history (as a means for survival). This point of view strongly supports the Darwinian evolutionary theory (ten Brinke, L. , Porter, S. , amp; Baker, A. , 2011). They intended to support their views using indicators that aligned with different theoretical orientations (as described below). I supported this hypothesis and believe they are on the right track to developing an effective lie detection intervention technique. I believe there is evolutionary evidence that demonstrates â€Å"leakage† and that upon further study, it could be very telling from a forensic stand point once more empirical research is conducted. Furthermore, I agree with their assertion that when people are experiencing powerful emotion (such as fear, anger or anguish) it is virtually impossible to keep from communicating those emotions in their faces, as well as the opposite- if you are not feeling a particular emotion it is hard to fake it. Therefore there must be a way to reliably differentiate and observe these cues. Steven Porter is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, who has published numerous research and theoretical articles on forensic issues ranging from credibility assessment, deception etection, psychopathy, and violent crime. In 2011, he set out with colleague Leann ten Brinke on their most comprehensive study of its kind to date; to investigate consequences of extremely high stakes emotional deception on the engagement of particular facial muscles to reveal a ‘false face’, by exhaustively analyzing dozens of videotaped public (real- life) appeal from relatives pleading for the safe return of missing family members. The procedure was clearly outlined in the study. Researchers obtained television footage from English speaking media agencies internationally to create a large sample size of 78 â€Å"pleaders†. The plea videos were then exhaustively coded frame by frame, at 30 frames per second, totalling an impressive 74, 731 frames. The authors compared videotaped behaviours of real-life deception relative to comparable real-life truthful displays, using three communication channels: speech, body language, and emotional facial expressions for indicators of emotional arousal, cognitive load, attempted behaviour control, and psycho-logical distancing related to several hypotheses. Internal validity was ensured by adhering to a strict definition of ground truth (overwhelming evidence) to differentiate liars from truth tellers. In approximately half of these cases there existed overwhelming evidence suggesting that the person making the ‘direct appeal’ (n=52) the moment where the pleader asks the perpetrator to let the missing person go, or for the missing person to make contact- was lying, while the other half support overwhelming evidence that the pleader was telling the truth. In fact, in approximately half of the videos (35), overwhelming evidence was eventually used to convict deceptive individuals of murdering their loved ones. While playing the concerned relative, there may be behavioural cues present that differentiate between a genuine plea and a deceptive one. It was expected that these would be revealed during the direct appeal. The authors then clearly demonstrated ways in which such deceivers unconsciously betray themselves in their facial expressions and speech to the keen observer. The non-verbal/body language, facial, verbal/linguistic, and physiological channels in detecting deception were then clearly discussed. Statistical results were described in detail and easily illustrated using tables and graphs. Variables being measured were evident, for easy comparison and interpretation. The team successfully predicted that deceptive pleaders would fail in convincing sadness and distress expressions. They showed an absence of or incomplete expressions of upper-face sadness than genuine pleaders. These muscles are connected to a primitive part of the brain called the limbic system which activate beyond one’s voluntary control during genuine distress. Porter and ten Brinke found that deceivers werent able to mimic that and even raised their eyebrows more often because it was assumed those who arent feeling true distress, can only fake it, making them appear more ‘surprised’. They also observed that deceivers showed subtle discordant emotions of happiness in their lower faces, appearing to occasionally smirk when delivering their ‘sad’ direct appeal. They also appeared to display false smiles, whereby only the muscles contract around the mouth only. Furthermore, many deceptive pleaders tended to display an immediate physiological response of disgust in the lower region of the face, where the upper lip moved toward the nose, and crinkles around the nose, but rarely among the genuinely distressed. Such a cue could be related to a kind of persistent, visceral reaction to the murder or even revulsion for the victim, despite professing how much they want the back. In an attempt to establish behaviour control and appear honest, it was expected that liars would maintain body language under conscious control, including gaze aversion and illustrators. However, they were observed to over compensate efforts to avoid misconceptions by not averting their eyes, therefore staring too long, and used too few or overly controlled (rigid) hand or body movements. Previous coding of these tapes also revealed several important differences in the verbal and nonverbal behavior of liars and truth-tellers, such as liars made more speech errors. Attempts by liars to create psychological distance were expected to result in a decrease in pronoun use and emotional words and an increase in tentative words (e. g. , ‘if’, ‘guess’, ‘perhaps’, ‘maybe’), relative to genuine pleaders was indeed observed. Liars also used fewer words and details, displayed increased speech hesitation (more â€Å"ums†, â€Å"ahs†, and â€Å"ers† in their stories) with longer pauses and had a slower speech rate. This supports their hypothesis that liars have to worry about not slipping up due to mentally taxing cognitive load. Another expected example of cognitive load is that they were bserved to blink more than genuine pleaders because of involuntary arousal associated with emotional masking. In fact, liars blinked, on average, nearly twice as frequently as the truth-tellers, which could also be due to the sheer effort of having to appear truthful. Finally, in complementing this ho listic examination of behavioral leakage, it was hypothesized that a multicue approach to deception detection would be supported. That valid cues, especially those aligned with different orientations would account for unique variance in predicting sincerity, and indeed they did. The best-validated cues to be considered together included: illustrators (hand and arm movements), blink and pause rate, speech rate, vague descriptions, repeated details, contextual embedding, reproduction of conversations, and emotional ‘leakage’ in the face. I appreciate how they addressed common errors still used in deception detection including: myths/folklore, examination of wrong cues or a single cue, observers placing too great an emphasis on non-verbal cues, too readily interpret certain behaviors as diagnostics (e. . nervousness), placing too great an emphasis on simplistic rules of thumb, overconfidence in their ability to detect deception, and neglecting inter and intrapersonal differences in individuals. These strategies are taught and advocated by police and impair lie detection because professionals overestimate their ability to detect deceit. I also appreciate how they addressed the limitations of the research including: The authors noted that few studies of high-stakes deception have been conducted. Moreover, some expressions of lying are highly idiosyncratic and therefore difficult to address in quantitative research and replicate in a lab. This demonstrates the need for new observation skills and innovative approaches for studying deceptiveness. Researchers also indicate such studies are better examined via videotape and not appropriate for real time court proceedings. It is vital to take advantage of what we know about distinct psychological processes by obtaining more insight into the differences between truth tellers and liars so researchers can develop effective lie detection strategies and interview tools. Hopefully with the development of workshops and further study, the scientific community and law agencies can watch videos, test the knowledge for facial expressions, evaluate and validate â€Å"what works†, discuss how it can be applied in a police investigation and use that knowledge to train and educate law enforcement to reliably and more accurately detect deception. In conclusion, recommendations are needed to be put forth to more consistently reveal deception. There is no one sure fire way to reveal deception, but in observing the absence of a single cue or behavioral channel that consistently reveals deception, a holistic approach with attention to multiple empirically validated indicators behavioural targets- of deceit and differences from baseline behaviour should be taken to bolster the assessor’s confidence in the determination of dishonesty (Porter S. , ten Brinke L 2010). It is essential to break away from outdated thought in order to avoid the stereotypical and widespread pitfalls associated with traditional lie detection. There still remains a huge need for more empirical evidence because there is still no explicit guidance for responsible application of deception research. With further study, it will ultimately create a strong foundation to promote ecological validity to be used more accurately in forensic settings. Works Cited Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DePaulo, B. M. , Kashy, D. A. , Kirkendol, S. E. , Wyer, M. M. , amp; Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995 Porter S. ten Brinke L (2010) The truth about lies: What works in detecting high-stakes deception? Legal and Criminological Psychology 15: 57–75. ten Brinke, L. amp; Porter, S. (2011, in press). Cry me a river: Identifying the behavioural consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception. Law and Human Behavior. ten Brinke, L. , Porter, S. , amp; Baker, A. (2011, in pre ss). Darwin the detective: Observable facial muscle contractions reveal emotional high-stakes lies. Evolution and Human Behavior. http://www. psychologicalscience. org/index. php/news/releases/lie-detection-misconceptions-pitfalls-and-opportunities-for-improvement. html