THE PROBLEM OF DECEPTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the last unit, we discussed accuracy of judgments. In addition, the unit served to introduce us to other units in this course. You can now describe person perception and explain cues used to make judgments. It is now time for us to discuss another interesting unit: the problem of deception. We will how consider non-verbal behaviour. Let us look at what other content you should learn in this unit as specified in the objectives below.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

1. identify channels of communication; 
2. eExplain deceptive non-verbal cues; and 
3. list factors influencing deception attempts. 

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Channels of Non-Verbal Communication

It is frequently assumed that certain aspects of non-verbal behaviour are not under voluntary control. Thus a look, or glance, or tone of voice may be involuntary or unintentional. However, a number or provisos need to be kept in mind. First not all channels of non-verbal communication are alike, some seem to be more under voluntary control than others. Leakage cues are defined as those non-verbal acts which give away information the sender wishes to conceal, while deception cues are those non-verbal acts which indicate that deception is occurring without revealing the concealed content of the message. Second, a number of factors influence success in deceiving others. Let us cite an example. Highly motivated deceivers seem more likely to fail to deceive observers, while experienced and confident lairs and those with the opportunity to plan their deceit seem to be more adept at deceiving. Thirdly, situational factors such as the degree of stressfulness of the situation influence detection of deceit.

Finally, a range of factors associated with the observer or message recipient influences the extent of detecting deception. For example, degree of suspicion, extent of probing questions asked and experience.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1

How will you define leakage cues?

3.2 Explanation for Deceptive Non-Verbal Cues

A number of psychological processes underpin deceptive communication (Zuckeerman and Driver, 1985). These are listed as control, arousal, felt emotion and cognitive processing. Lie tellers are insecure, more concerned with the impression they are making, more guilty or anxious or more aroused than truth tellers. Because most people tell lies rather less frequently than they tell the truth there may be a general tendency to feel less confident and insecure when trying to deceive. As a result, deceptive behaviour may appear to be planned, rehearsed or lacking in spontaneity. This is more apparent for those non verbal bebaviours over which some degree of voluntary control can be exerted; for example taking a longer time to respond before speaking, or speaking more slowly.


Those who are socially anxious also exhibit a longer response time and slower speech. That is, they are by nature concerned about making a particular impression but are insecure about doing so. Hence their non- verbal style is a characteristic sign of deceit. I know you are enjoying our discussion given your active participation. That is nice. We must go on now. It is important for you to note that deception seems to increase body arousal. .Behaviours associated with arousal includes increased pupil dilation, eye blinks, voice pitch, speech errors and hesitations. Given the stressful nature of most interrogative interview, such signs would be the norm rather than the exception. For example, it would be quite usual when someone is telling the truth but is highly motivated to be believed.

It must also be noted that telling lies is likely to require thought and may well be a more cognitively complex task than telling the truth. A number of non-verbal behaviours are associated with cognitive demand including pupil dilation, pausing and decreased number of illustrative hand movements. An opportunity to plan and rehearse may thus be advantageous to some deceivers. It is worth bearing in mind also that thought and planning may be required when truthful message senders are highly motivated to convince others they are telling the truth. Note that this is not unusual in many interrogative interviews.


Thus, although it may well be the case that lie tellers, in comparison to truth tellers, are more concerned with the impression they are making, they may appear more guilty or more anxious or more aroused but there are certain instances when these same motives and feeling may be affected in truth tellers; for example, during interrogative interviews when it is important that a truthful message is believed.

3.3 Factors Influencing Deception Attempts

Motivation
The research literature suggests that the behaviour of highly motivated deceivers differs from the behaviour of less motivated ones. To get away  with lying, their lies become more obvious to observers. De Paulo et. at (1983 cited in Taylor et. al. 2000) found that judges who could see the speakers’ facial expressions and body movements, or hear the tone of voice cues, were more successful at detecting the lies of motivated than unmotivated speakers. In contrast, those judges who only had access to the typed transcript of what had been said were relatively less successful at detecting lies told by motivated speakers.

A similar effect was suggested by De Paulo (1985) in another study where undergraduates were urged to make a good impression while telling lies and truths to attractive or unattractive members of the same sex or opposite sex. The author argued that subjects would be more highly motivated to lie to members of the opposite sex and indeed lies were more readily detected in this instance.


Reviews of a range of studies suggest that, in comparison to less highly motivated senders, those who are more highly motivated to deceive give slower, shorter, more negative and more highly pitched responses which are accompanied by less eye contact, 1ess blinking, fewer head movements, and fewer postural shifts and fewer adaptive gestures, (De Paulo et. al. 1983 cited in Taylor et. al. 2000). Motivated deceivers try hard to either suppress or control their behaviour and, as a result, end up over controlling it. Observers notice this and infer that the person might be lying.
Highly motivated liars may also be those who are likely to plan their response, be more practiced and more confident in their ability to deceive.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2

Will you be motivated to be a member of a discussion group with female student) be reading or studying the same course with you and with whom you regularly meet at the study centre?
Let us continue

Experienced Deceivers

The ability to use non-verbal behaviour is gained by practice and experience. For example, there is some evidence that experienced sales people are effective liars (De Paulo and De Paulo, 1989). In this study, sales people were videotaped while making pitches for products they liked and products they disliked but still had to try to sell. With these more experienced liars, observers were unable to detect lies from the truth even when they were directed towards cues which typically help people to detect them. This failure to detect deception showed that the relevant cues were simply not present.

De Paulo and De Paulo suggest four possible explanations for their results: 

1. Sales people may be more practiced or experienced at telling similar lies. 
2.  They may have confidence in their ability to deceive. 
3. They may have a natural ability to deceive or may lack guilt about lying in relation to selling. 

You must also remember that individual differences (which we have discussed) in communication skills are closely linked to deception ability and that confidence in one’s ability to deceive plays an important role. Self-Confidence Individuals who are skilled communicators of posed emotions tend to be more successful deceivers, whereas socially anxious subjects are less successful. Lies, in comparison to truths are particularly detectable when it is important for the deception to be successful but the deceiver has a low expectation of their likely success. 

Message Planning

The opportunity to plan and rehearse deceptive messages makes them more difficult to detect. Spontaneous deception contains more speech errors and pauses than spontaneous truthful messages. In contrast, there may be no difference between truth- tellers and liars that are given the opportunity to plan their messages. It is to be noted that truth-tellers may be even more highly motivated than deceivers in interrogative situations and yet they are frequently assumed to be lying.

4.0 CONCLUSION

In this unit, you learnt non-verbal behaviour. You have therefore learnt channels of non-verbal communication. In addition, you have learnt explanations for deceptive non-verbal cues and factors influencing deception attempts.

5.0 SUMMARY

1. What you have learnt in this unit concerns non-verbal behaviour
2. You also learnt channels of non-verbal communication, explanations for deceptive non-verbal cues, and factors influencing deception attempts. 
3. It is more likely that a highly experienced, self-confident and socially skilled liar who has taken the opportunity to plan their lies but is not highly motivated to deceive will be erroneously assumed to be telling the truth. 

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1.  Distinguish between leakage cues and deception cues 
2. Three factors that influence success in deceiving other are: 
3.  Four psychological processes that underpin deceptive communication are: