Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved Chapter 12 Deception Prepared by Robert Gass & John Seiter Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved How could they not know? Elin Nordegren was unaware at the time that Tiger Woods had 15 or more mistresses Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky; “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky…” Dottie Sandusky claims she didn’t know her husband was a pedophile until he was officially charged Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme cost investors more than $20 billion Frank Abagnale (about whom the movie Catch Me If You Can was based) Note: the “truth bias” (discussed later) explains why people sometimes don’t know, or don’t want to know. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved Lying is quite common Lying appears to be a favorite pastime DePaulo & Kashy (1998): the average person lied to 34% of the people with whom she/he interacted in a typical week Hample (1980): respondents reported lying an avg. of 13 times per week DePaulo & Bell (1996): Married couples lied in 1 out of 10 interactions with their partners DePaulo & Kashy (1988): college students lied to their mothers in half of their conversations Robinson, Shepherd, & Heywood (1998): 83% of respondents said they would lie in order to get a job Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

DECEPTION AND PERSUASION Deception is a form of persuasion It is intentional, purposeful communication It seeks to alter beliefs, attitudes, impressions about another It involves two or more persons Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved The veracity effect People are not particularly good at detecting deception Average accuracy is roughly 54%, or just slightly better than chance The veracity effect People fare slightly better at detecting truths, and slightly worse at spotting lies Lying is highly idiosyncratic Not everyone lies in the same way Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved Motivations for lying Why do people deceive one another? Lie to benefit another Lie for affiliation Lie to protect privacy Lie to avoid conflict Lie to appear better (self promotion) Lie to protect self Lie to benefit self Lie to harm another (malicious intent) Lie for amusement (duping delight) Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Information manipulation theory Not all lies are outright falsehoods Deception includes distortions, omissions, and selectivity Liars manipulate the quantity of information Not telling the whole truth Liars manipulate the quality of information Distortions, exaggerations Liars manipulate the manner in which they present information Ambiguity, vagueness, equivocation Liars manipulate the relationship or relevance of information Irrelevant statements, nonresponsive information Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved The four factor model Arousal: Lying increases anxiousness, nervousness Attempted control: Liars try to control signs of arousal Sending capacity hypothesis: Liars know the face has high sending capacity, so they concentrate on controlling facial cue leakage Controlling facial cues leads to cue leakage elsewhere Cues tend to be leaked via the extremities, e.g., hands, legs, feet Emotion: Lying triggers negative emotions guilt, fear Thinking: lying usually requires more mental effort Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Interpersonal deception theory Strategic behaviors uncertainty and vagueness (few, sketchy details) non-immediacy, reticence, withdrawal (psychological distance, disinterest, aloofness) dissociation (distance self from message, fewer “I” or “me” statements) image and relationship protecting behavior (smiling, nodding) Nonstrategic behaviors arousal and nervousness negative affect incompetent communication performance Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Why are some liars better than others? Wool-pullers Lying is a communication skill (Camden, Motley, & Wilson, 1984) Lying is a form of communication competence Machiavellians tend to be better at lying High self-monitors tend to be better at lying Gender differences are small Females are socialized to be more trusting Females may have a stronger truth bias Females focus on misleading cues when listening (eyes, face). Individual differences tend to swamp gender differences Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Are some lies easier to tell? Prepared lies are easier to tell than impromptu lies less arousal, less cognitive effort spontaneous lies feature more verbal and nonverbal cues Longer lies are harder to tell than shorter lies more to remember greater risk of inconsistencies Lies about personally relevant information are easier to tell than lies about “neutral” information but observers are better at detecting emotional lies Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Motivational impairment effect The stronger their motivation, the more liars tend to over- control their nonverbal behavior Liars are more rigid, exhibit less body movement Deception is often associated with fewer finger, hand, and lower limb movements Liars think that nervousness, fidgeting, shifting will be perceived as deception Liars are concentrating on other channels and can’t devote attention to their movements Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved High stakes lies High stakes lies are more detectable than low stakes lies More arousal leads to greater cue leakage However, some people’s lives and livelihoods depend on high stakes lies Undercover cops Poker players Spies Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Misconceptions about lying Wrong subjective cue hypothesis Observers tend to focus on the wrong cues Deceivers are no more likely to avoid eye contact Deceivers do not necessarily take longer to answer Deceivers do not engage in more postural shifting Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved Familiarity biases Truth Bias People with a truth bias tend to be more trusting They err on the side of presuming others are being honest Common among intimates, close friends Lie Bias People with a lie bias tend to be more suspicious They err on the side of mistrusting others Common among law enforcement personnel Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved Familiarity biases Intimates may be worse at spotting partners’ than strangers’ lies Their truth bias blinds them to their partner’s deceptiveness Strangers have less of a truth bias Cops may brow-beat suspects into false confessions Cops exhibit a strong lie bias They are (mistakenly) overconfident of their deception detection skills They may coerce confessions from innocent people Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved suspicion Suspicious signs shorter answers response latency controlled body movements Revealing one’s suspicions may make a liar try harder to conceal signs Opposing effects model once aroused, suspicion reduces truth bias suspicious observers are better at spotting lies and worse at discerning the truth Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Probing effect & Othello error The Probing Effect Probing a “suspect” makes it harder to detect deception Acting suspicious alerts liars and makes them even more vigilant Probing heuristic: Observers or 3rd parties are more likely to believe the liar The Othello Error Knowing that someone suspects you of lying increases arousal Arousal cues may be mistaken for deception cues Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Eliciting cues to deception Imposing a greater cognitive load Lying is more mentally taxing than telling the truth Increasing a “suspect’s” mental load may result in cue leakage Strategic questioning approach Asking unanticipated questions to put a “suspect” off balance Contextual cues Statements that contradict known facts Claims that are inconsistent with known information Why police always want to verify a suspect’s alibi Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved