Deceptive Intentions: Can Cues to Deception Be Measured before a Lie Is Even Stated?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Strofer S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4446301 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Are the cues that speakers produce when lying the same cues that listeners attend to when attempting to detect deceit? We used a two-person interactive game to explore the production and perception of speech and nonverbal cues to lying. In each game turn, participants viewed pairs of images, with the location of some treasure indicated to the speaker but not to the listener. The speaker described the location of the treasure, with the objective of misleading the listener about its true location; the listener attempted to locate the treasure, based on their judgement of the speaker's veracity. In line with previous comprehension research, listeners' responses suggest that they attend primarily to behaviours associated with increased mental difficulty, perhaps because lying, under a cognitive hypothesis, is thought to cause an increased cognitive load. Moreover, a mouse-tracking analysis suggests that these judgements are made quickly, while the speakers' utterances are still unfolding. However, there is a surprising mismatch between listeners and speakers: When producing false statements, speakers are less likely to produce the cues that listeners associate with lying. This production pattern is in keeping with an attempted control hypothesis, whereby liars may take into account listeners' expectations and correspondingly manipulate their behaviour to avoid detection.
| S-EPMC6634475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lying appears in everyday oral and written communication. As a consequence, detecting it on the basis of linguistic analysis is particularly important. Our study aimed to verify whether the differences between true and false statements in terms of complexity and sentiment that were reported in previous studies can be confirmed using tools dedicated to measuring those factors. Further, we investigated whether linguistic features that differentiate true and false utterances in English-namely utterance length, concreteness, and particular parts-of-speech-are also present in the Polish language. We analyzed nearly 1,500 true and false statements, half of which were transcripts while the other half were written statements. Our results show that false statements are less complex in terms of vocabulary, are more concise and concrete, and have more positive words and fewer negative words. We found no significant differences between spoken and written lies. Using this data, we built classifiers to automatically distinguish true from false utterances, achieving an accuracy of 60%. Our results provide a significant contribution to previous conclusions regarding linguistic deception indicators.
| S-EPMC9894434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous deception research on repeated interviews found that liars are not less consistent than truth tellers, presumably because liars use a "repeat strategy" to be consistent across interviews. The goal of this study was to design an interview procedure to overcome this strategy. Innocent participants (truth tellers) and guilty participants (liars) had to convince an interviewer that they had performed several innocent activities rather than committing a mock crime. The interview focused on the innocent activities (alibi), contained specific central and peripheral questions, and was repeated after 1 week without forewarning. Cognitive load was increased by asking participants to reply quickly. The liars' answers in replying to both central and peripheral questions were significantly less accurate, less consistent, and more evasive than the truth tellers' answers. Logistic regression analyses yielded classification rates ranging from around 70% (with consistency as the predictor variable), 85% (with evasive answers as the predictor variable), to over 90% (with an improved measure of consistency that incorporated evasive answers as the predictor variable, as well as with response accuracy as the predictor variable). These classification rates were higher than the interviewers' accuracy rate (54%).
| S-EPMC5088571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acoustic cues to deception on a picture naming task were analyzed in three groups of English speakers: monolinguals, bilinguals with English as their first language (English-L1), and bilinguals with English as a second language (English-L2). Results revealed that all participants had longer reaction times when generating falsehoods than when producing truths, and that the effect was more robust for English-L2 bilinguals than for the other two groups. Articulation rate was higher for all groups when producing lies. Mean fundamental frequency and intensity cues were not reliable cues to deception, but there was lower variance in both of these parameters when generating false vs. true labels for all participants. Results suggest that naming latency was the only cue to deception that differed by language background. These findings broadly support the cognitive-load theory of deception, suggesting that a combination of producing deceptive speech and using a second language puts an extra load on the speaker.
| S-EPMC7995834 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDeception is present in all walks of life, from social interactions to matters of homeland security. Nevertheless, reliable indicators of deceptive behavior in real-life scenarios remain elusive.MethodsBy integrating electrophysiological and communicative approaches, we demonstrate a new and objective detection approach to identify participant-specific indicators of deceptive behavior in an interactive scenario of a two-person deception task. We recorded participants' facial muscle activity using novel dry screen-printed electrode arrays and applied machine-learning algorithms to identify lies based on brief facial responses.ResultsWith an average accuracy of 73%, we identified two groups of participants: Those who revealed their lies by activating their cheek muscles and those who activated their eyebrows. We found that the participants lied more often with time, with some switching their telltale muscle groups. Moreover, while the automated classifier, reported here, outperformed untrained human detectors, their performance was correlated, suggesting reliance on shared features.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate the feasibility of using wearable electrode arrays in detecting human lies in a social setting and set the stage for future research on individual differences in deception expression.
| S-EPMC8671780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When questioning the veracity of an utterance, we perceive certain non-linguistic behaviours to indicate that a speaker is being deceptive. Recent work has highlighted that listeners' associations between speech disfluency and dishonesty are detectable at the earliest stages of reference comprehension, suggesting that the manner of spoken delivery influences pragmatic judgements concurrently with the processing of lexical information. Here, we investigate the integration of a speaker's gestures into judgements of deception, and ask if and when associations between nonverbal cues and deception emerge. Participants saw and heard a video of a potentially dishonest speaker describe treasure hidden behind an object, while also viewing images of both the named object and a distractor object. Their task was to click on the object behind which they believed the treasure to actually be hidden. Eye and mouse movements were recorded. Experiment 1 investigated listeners' associations between visual cues and deception, using a variety of static and dynamic cues. Experiment 2 focused on adaptor gestures. We show that a speaker's nonverbal behaviour can have a rapid and direct influence on listeners' pragmatic judgements, supporting the idea that communication is fundamentally multimodal.
| S-EPMC7062244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Frequently, in rugby, players incorporate deceptive motions (e.g., a side-step) in order to pass their opponent. Previous works showed that expert defenders are more efficient in detecting deceptive motions. Performance was shown to be correlated with the evolution of the center of gravity of the attacker, suggesting that experts may rely on global motion cues. This study aims at investigating whether a representation of center of gravity can be useful for training purposes, by using this representation alone or by combining it with the local motion cues given by body parts. We designed an experiment in virtual reality to control the motion cues available to the defenders. Sixteen healthy participants (seven experts and nine novices) acted as defenders while a virtual attacker approached. Participants completed two separate tasks. The first was a time occlusion perception task, occlusion after 100ms, 200ms or 300ms after the initial change in direction, thereafter participants indicated the passing direction of the attacker. The second was a perception-action task, participants were instructed to intercept the oncoming attacker by displacing medio-laterally. The attacker performed either a non-deceptive motion, directly toward the final passing direction or a deceptive motion, initially toward a false direction before quickly reorienting to the true direction. There was a main effect of expertise, appearance, cut off times and motion on correct responses during both tasks. There was an interaction between visual appearance and expertise, and between motion type and expertise during the perception task, however, this interaction was not present during the perception-action task. We observed that experts maintained superiority in the perception of deceptive motion; however when the visual appearance is reduced to global motion alone the difference between novices and experts is reduced. We further explore the interactions and discuss the effects observed for the visual appearance and expertise.
| S-EPMC6743770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic requires motivating the vast majority of Americans to get vaccinated. However, vaccination rates have become politically polarized, and a substantial proportion of Republicans have remained vaccine hesitant for months. Here, we explore how endorsements by party elites affect Republicans' COVID-19 vaccination intentions and attitudes. In a preregistered survey experiment (n = 1,480), we varied whether self-identified Republicans saw endorsements of the vaccine from prominent Republicans (including video of a speech by former President Donald Trump), from the Democratic Party (including video of a speech by President Joseph Biden), or a neutral control condition including no endorsements. Unvaccinated Republicans who were exposed to the Republican elite endorsement reported 7.0% higher vaccination intentions than those who viewed the Democratic elite endorsement and 5.7% higher than those in the neutral control condition. These effects were statistically mediated by participants' reports of how much they thought Republican politicians would want them to get vaccinated. We also found evidence of backlash effects against Democratic elites: Republicans who viewed the Democratic elite endorsement reported they would be significantly less likely to encourage others to vaccinate and had more negative attitudes toward the vaccine, compared with those who viewed the Republican elite endorsement or the neutral control. These results demonstrate the relative advantage of cues from Republican elites-and the risks of messaging from Democrats currently in power-for promoting vaccination among the largest vaccine-hesitant subgroup in the United States.
| S-EPMC8364165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Verbal deception detection has gained momentum as a technique to tell truth-tellers from liars. At the same time, researchers' degrees of freedom make it hard to assess the robustness of effects. Replication research can help evaluate how reproducible an effect is. We present the first replication in verbal deception research whereby ferry passengers were instructed to tell the truth or lie about their travel plans. The original study found truth-tellers to include more specific time references in their answers. The replication study that closely mimicked the setting, procedure, materials, coding, and analyses found no lie-truth difference for specific time references. Although the power of our replication study was suboptimal (0.77), Bayesian statistics showed evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. Given the great applied consequences of verbal credibility tests, we hope this first replication attempt ignites much needed preregistered, high-powered, multilab replication efforts.
| S-EPMC6174984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ability of a deceiver to track a victim's ongoing judgments about the truthfulness of the deceit can be critical for successful deception. However, no study has yet investigated the neural circuits underlying receiving a judgment about one's lie. To explore this issue, we used a modified Guilty Knowledge Test in a mock murder situation to simultaneously record the neural responses involved in producing deception and later when judgments of that deception were made. Producing deception recruited the bilateral inferior parietal lobules (IPLs), right ventral lateral prefrontal (VLPF) areas and right striatum, among which the activation of the right VLPF contributed mostly to diagnosing the identities of the participants, correctly diagnosing 81.25% of 'murderers' and 81.25% of 'innocents'. Moreover, the participant's response when their deception was successful uniquely recruited the right middle frontal gyrus, bilateral IPLs, bilateral orbitofrontal cortices, bilateral middle temporal gyrus and left cerebellum, among which the right IPL contributed mostly to diagnosing participants' identities, correctly diagnosing 93.75% of murderers and 87.5% of innocents. This study shows that neural activity associated with being a successful liar (or not) is a feasible indicator for detecting lies and may be more valid than neural activity associated with producing deception.
| S-EPMC4187261 | biostudies-literature