1. Decision making following deceptive interactions Rachel Taylor and Paul Nash University of Glamorgan This research was supported by a Social Sciences Small Grant from the Nuffield Foundation. Contact: rtaylor@glam.ac.uk

2. Overview  Believed cues to deception  Traditional approaches  Recent research  Research aims and methodology  Results – decision-making by lie detectors  Real-world relevance/plausibility  Consistency  Alternative explanations  Politeness

3. Believed cues to deception  Generated from structured questionnaires  Associated with deception judgements  Broad general conclusion – liars believed to behave nervously  Applies to both “experts” and “laypeople” (e.g. Akehurst et al., 1996; Strömwall et al., 2003)

4. Believed cues to deception  Beliefs about cues to deception = best explained by emotional approach (e.g. Vrij, 2000)  NB: Very few actual cues to deception and tend to be indicators of over-control (e.g. DePaulo et al., 2003)  NB: Some changes in beliefs across different situations (e.g. Lakhani and Taylor, 2003)

5. New Approaches  Use of structured questionnaires may encourage reliance on stereotypical judgements (Heath, 2000)  Qualitative approach to believed cues – suggests that lie detectors can be more flexible and less stereotyped (e.g. Taylor and Rolfe 2005a)  Lying is strategic and involves self-presentation, awareness of others’ expectations and deflection

6. The current study  Builds on recent qualitative research  Links decision-making to specific deception judgements  Research Question: What strategies do lie detectors use when making deception judgements?

7. Method  Recording Phase  13 same-gender dyads  Senders – presented 2 events (1 positive, 1 negative)  Receivers – questioned senders on events  Both senders and receivers given preparation time

8. Method  Post-interview debrief  Tapes played back to interviewer and interviewee separately  Interviewees – indicate actual truths and deception  Interviewers – pinpointed truths and lies and gave reasons  Both – gave qualitative and quantitative information about truth, credibility, comfort, control, effort and motivation

9. Analysis  Thematic analysis of interviewer debrief interviews  Allows for information about decision-making cued by tape replaying  Similar to retrospective protocol analysis (ref here)  Transcribed and themes identified

10. Themes  Real-world relevance/plausibility  Based on EITHER specific knowledge/experience OR general judgements  Seemed strange that she young and out – as gets dark early...October? (Interviewer 2)  Took an open-ended approach – but had prior knowledge of swimming with dolphins. Something you could do and seemed plausible – no real eyecontact but did say how she felt – adds to her believability. Feeding them was quite a brief answer but still plausible. (Interviewer 7)

11. Themes  Consistency  Between different elements of the account  Seemed consistent throughout. (Interviewer 11)  Between verbal and non-verbal behaviour  Mismatch between non-verbal behaviour and verbal content – perhaps a way of dealing with it. (Interviewer 7)  Between expected and observed behaviour  She mentioned lymphoma and leukaemia but didn’t seem that bothered (Interviewer 12)

12. Themes  Alternative explanation  Noticed verbal and non-verbal behaviour but tried to explain in other ways  Not immediately jumping to “deception” conclusion  Most people are uncomfortable in interview situations but her speech didn’t indicate she was really nervous. (Interviewer 9)  Camera presence leads to nerves. (Interviewer 13)

13. Themes  Politeness  Related to alternative explanations and reluctance to indicate lying  May relate to a “politeness convention” (Brown and Levinson, 1987)  Tried hard to control behaviour but not succeeding – uncomfortable putting head down and fidgeting, negative personal things – impression conveyed was all rosy – put a stop to negative questioning when it started. This had a major impact, knew straightaway what was going to probe – tried to reduce the impact of questioning – not upright made you want to probe her more – be careful what you’re asking because is it genuinely upsetting or lie? (Interviewer 4)

14. Discussion/Conclusions  Supports recent qualitative approaches on believed cues (e.g. Taylor and Rolfe, 2005a, b)  Variety of general strategies rather than stereotyped cues  Awareness of other potential causes of behaviour (complex rather than simple attributions).  Awareness of conversational context and over- adherence to conversational maxims may impede willingness to detect lies (Grice, 1975)

15. Further Research  Linkage between decision making strategies and:  Detection accuracy  Behaviour displayed (sender and receiver)  Lie type and motivation  Individual differences (e.g. Attributional Complexity Scale, Self-monitoring scale)