Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

Such a Strange Way of Speaking, Your Battery's Leaking, Oh Boy! CONVINCING AND CONVEYING. Jun 4, 2022

 Cues to deception

https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-019-0194-z

When attempting to evaluate the veracity of a statement, there are two primary cues that we can rely on: behavioral cues provided by the speaker and the content of the provided account. The emotion framework of deception posits that a liar experiences either fear, guilt, or excitement, resulting in the liar providing behavioral cues indicative of that arousal, such as more speech errors and a higher pitched voice (Ekman, 1992). This notion seems intuitive and when asked to describe what indicators would be present when an individual is trying to deceive another person, it is common to receive answers such as more grooming behaviors (e.g., playing with one’s hair), stories that lack coherence, and marked gaze aversion (Global Deception Research Team, 2006). In fact, a worldwide survey revealed that of the 58 countries that were represented, the majority of respondents in 51 countries thought that gaze aversion was an accurate indicator of guilt (Global Deception Research Team, 2006). Though certain indicators do seem to be weakly related to deception (e.g., voice pitch, pupil size), many commonly suggested indicators are unrelated, such as gaze, blinking, and speech disturbances (DePaulo et al., 2003), highlighting the difficulty of using such cues to differentiate between truthful and deceptive statements. However, relying on behavioral cues is one approach an individual may take when attempting to assess veracity.


Another way to assess statements for veracity is to consider their content, rather than behavioral cues. A cognitive framework proposes that the act of deception is cognitively demanding and this makes it harder for a liar to create a fluid and compelling account (see Vrij, 2015 for a review). A person who is under cognitive load is likely to speak slower, display more speech errors, and make fewer gestures and movements during their account (Ekman & Friesen, 1972; Goldman-Eisler, 1968). The notion that there is a difference in cognitive load is supported by studies that exploit these differences for liars and truth tellers. This includes manipulations that require participants to maintain eye contact with an interviewer (Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Fisher, 2010), complete additional tasks when providing their account (Debey, Verschuere, & Crombez, 2012), providing accounts in reverse chronological order (Evans, Michael, Meissner, & Brandon, 2013; Vrij et al., 2008), and having participants “take turns” when providing their accounts (Vernham, Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Hillman, 2014). These findings suggest that it is also possible to rely on content-based cues when assessing veracity.


While it is unlikely that researchers will identify a single verbal or nonverbal cue that serves as a perfect indication of deception (i.e., Pinocchio’s nose), by better understanding what type of false statement we are likely to incorrectly believe or alternatively, what truthful statements will be deemed deceptive, the current studies explore the impact that different statements can have on deception detection. Specifically, we focus on a statement’s veracity, whether the statement was practiced (repeated) or not, and whether the statement is a description or a denial. Additionally, we also manipulated whether the speaker was referring to an action they performed or one that they observed. Typically, most deception studies ask participants to judge one piece of information per speaker. However, a novel component that the current studies add to the literature is that participants were asked to assess multiple statements provided by the same speaker, allowing participants to become familiar with what the speaker might look like when they are lying or telling the truth. By understanding the finer points of where deception is more or less likely to be successful, researchers can make better informed attempts at trying to improve lie detection rates.


Veracity and type of statements

Not only is it important to be able to recognize a lie, it is equally important to recognize a truthful statement. To this end, understanding biases that might impact our ability to distinguish between truths and lies is important. One bias that has been demonstrated in the literature is known as the truth bias wherein people are usually more accurate when they are asked to judge truthful statements as opposed to deceptive statements; however, this finding stems more from the fact that participants seem to be more inclined to view a statement as truthful as opposed to truly being more accurate (DePaulo, Charlton, Cooper, Lindsay, & Muhlenbruck, 1997; Vrij, 2000). In fact, Vrij and Baxter (1999) found that this truth bias is dependent on the type of statement that was made. Participants watched 20 videos of people telling the truth and 20 videos of people telling a lie. Furthermore, half of these statements were more elaborated in length (i.e., descriptions) or statements with little information (i.e., denials). The results revealed that the longer, descriptive statements elicited a truth bias, where participants were more likely to judge the statement as being truthful. Conversely, the denials were judged to be deceptive more often than they were judged as truthful. A critical difference between Vrij and Baxter (1999) and the current study is that each statement was given by a different person, preventing the participant from being able to look for cues to deceptions within an individual speaker. These findings suggest that not only is there a difference in our ability to discern truthful statements from lies, but the type of statement that is provided impacts these judgments.


Repetition or practice of statements

Given that it requires more cognitive resources to spontaneously construct a lie than to provide a truthful statement (Vrij et al., 2008), it is intuitive that being able to practice your lie might enhance your believability. Specifically, practicing the lie might reduce some behavioral and content cues that indicate deception, such as being able to provide longer accounts with more details that might be more compelling to a person trying to judge the statement’s veracity. Although they did not directly compare repeated lies to non-repeated lies, Bond Jr and DePaulo (2006) found that when participants knew that they were going to be asked to lie, detectors of deception were less accurate at identifying that the statement was deceptive as opposed to when the participant had to spontaneously generate the lie. In a similar vein, Vrij et al. (2009) found that asking both liars and truth tellers a series of unanticipated questions (e.g., to draw the spatial layout of a location) resulted in liars having more difficulty in providing answers compared to truth tellers. This questioning approach resulted in liars being unprepared to answer these questions, allowing for 80% of liars and truth tellers to be accurately categorized, suggesting that there are techniques that can be beneficial when making veracity assessments.


Research has also demonstrated that simply practicing the act of lying made it easier for people to lie later on (Van Bockstaele et al., 2012). Van Bockstaele et al. (2012) found that participants who were trained to lie rather than tell the truth found it easier to lie than participants who had been trained to tell the truth. However, this difference was only seen for items that had been presented once in the training phase as opposed to novel test items, highlighting that even providing a lie once earlier makes it easier to lie about that item at a later time. Taken as a whole, these studies provide a reason to expect that practicing a lie is indeed beneficial to liars with regard to improving their ability to deceive. However, it is also important to evaluate how practice may or may not impact the believability of truthful statements as truth tellers could potentially be at a disadvantage when their truthful statement is compared to a deceptive and potentially practiced statement.


This is a transcript of one of Benny Keyz'z uhm'splaining his new words

0:06

good afternoon

0:08

so really quick

0:11

um

0:13

there's a number of us that are taking a

0:15

study course

0:16

very in-depth stuff of course

0:19

and

0:21

it's about how to

0:22

detect

0:23

right now this module

0:26

is

0:30

the art of detecting deceit and

0:33

statements

0:34

and the things and how to identify them

0:36

so

0:40

jody sue hit for many many many many of

0:44

the of the criteria

0:46

so

0:47

one of the things that struck me and

0:49

that that i was interested in is

0:52

um personalization right so

0:55

personalization

0:56

um and and in my opinion also could

0:58

spill over to what looks like

1:00

an alibi the creating of an alibi so

1:03

we've got jodie sue really

1:05

anchoring down on 609 this 430 to 442

1:10

um you know it's it's

1:13

it's theoretically allegedly the sort of

1:16

thing

1:17

that of course you could

1:19

you could talk about after

1:22

uh post offense but

1:24

it's the kind of information and things

1:27

that someone

1:30

you know prevent

1:32

so

1:33

personalization also you'll see it all

1:35

through jody sue's media

1:38

she gives everyone their own little name

1:41

and i guess we all do that but she's in

1:43

a different position than us

1:45

we're just ugly youtubers

1:48

she's a suspect

1:50

so for her

1:52

to be personalizing this stuff and

1:54

making it a game

1:56

you have to remember she's a suspect

1:58

she's a person's of interest

2:00

right i he it's it equates to a suspect

2:02

so

2:05

she personalizes all of this she's

2:08

customizing she's making it all about

2:10

her

2:12

now

2:13

there's two major ways

2:15

that statements are relayed

2:18

those two ways are

2:20

convincing or conveying

2:24

when you c you convey fact

2:26

you convince with lies

2:30

so when you convey fact those facts

2:34

um you know

2:35

in a relative realm

2:37

don't change

2:39

you just can repeat the facts

2:41

over again over and over and over for 11

2:45

months again

2:46

when you're trying to convince people

2:48

with things less than fact

2:51

what you have is is you have a melding

2:55

this this factual stuff

2:58

becomes very malleable

3:00

and you see in a lot of jodie sue's

3:02

stuff it's malleable it changes okay

3:05

so

3:07

we've got a a real malleability about

3:10

her version of the events

3:13

now

3:16

the convincing and conveying

3:18

um

3:19

also falls into the personalization

3:22

because

3:23

when you're trying to convince someone

3:28

of something less than truth

3:30

you have to personalize it in a way

3:33

um

3:34

that could could be viable could be

3:36

factual and actual right

3:39

so

3:41

the other

3:43

main

3:44

sort of motto of

3:47

this

3:49

seminar

3:50

is that

3:52

deceit

3:53

thrives in confusion

3:58

if at any time you find yourself

4:03

receiving a statement from someone

4:06

if it sounds confusing

4:09

then that confusion would warrant

4:12

someone that has these skills

4:15

to look into the idea that they're

4:17

actively being deceived

4:20

or the attempt the very real attempt is

4:22

being made to deceive

4:24

so personalization

4:28

convincing or conveying

4:31

those are three main things three main

4:34

prongs

4:36

that jsp has a real issue

4:39

keeping continuities

4:43

i'll go more in depth later on when i'm

4:46

able

4:47

until then i want all of you to remember

4:49

the absence of evidence is not the

4:50

evidence of absence

4:55

i feel like as we go further

4:58

that starts to mean something different

5:01

right

5:02

the absence of evidence

5:05

the fact that evidence isn't there is

5:07

not the evidence that something is

5:09

missing

5:12

i love all of your individuals remember

5:14

it's also always better to be

5:16

a warrior in a garden than a gardener



No comments: