SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 11
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Julie Robinson
Argosy University Online
M7 A2 Psy492
   Can the average person accurately detect
    deception by means of analyzing the sender’s non-
    verbal cues?

   Although it is believed that we do rely heavily on
    non-verbal cues when interacting with others, the
    current literature suggest the answer to the this
    question is no.

   While we may rely on non-verbal communication
    as an indicator of truthfulness, there is no
    guarantee that our observations are accurate (Bond
    et al, 1992).
   Individual differences in the ability to detect
    lies (Bond & DePaulo, 2008)

   Physiological changes related to lying
    (Pennebaker & Chew, 1985)

   How to appear truthful when telling lies (Frank
    & Ekman, 2004)
   Bond and DePaulo (2008) found that there
    were no differences among individual’s ability
    to detect lies.
    Frank and Ekman (2004) mention in their
    research article that, “Research has shown that
    facial signs of fear, distress, or enjoyment can
    and do betray deception”.
   The major differences between the articles of
    interest have to do with the specific aspects of
    truthfulness or lying that the researches are
    interested in.
   Bond, Omar, Pitre, et al (1992) determined in
    their study that lie detection judgments are
    barely more accurate than chance.
    According to Bond, Kahler, & Paolicelli (1985)
    the majority of individuals can hardly
    determine dishonesty from honesty
   However, Ekman & O’Sullivan (1991) imply
    that some people have the special ability of
    detecting lies.
   Although the researchers may disagree on the
    various aspects of lying and the best means of
    detecting them, it appears that they all agree that
    (regardless of whether or not are judgments are
    accurate) we depend on nonverbal cues as a means
    of drawing a conclusion and determining truth
    from fiction.
   It also appears that the majority of researchers do
    not feel that it is possible to detect deception via
    nonverbal behaviors accurately, even with the use
    of mechanical lie detectors there is always room
    for inconsistencies.
   As seen through the review of related literature
    the prevailing arguments about the average
    person’s ability to detect deceptions appears to
    be that we are not capable of accurately
    judging truths from lies, at least not anymore
    capable then we are by chance (Bond, 1992, &
    DePaulo, 2008).
   The second prevailing argument is that even
    given all of the research to support this
    consensus, human beings consistently relies on
    such forms of nonverbal behavioral cues.
   When the sender deviates from social norms or
    expected behaviors, we naturally become
    suspicious. Such deviations aid in our decision
    making as to whether or not a person is being
    deceitful, but do not guarantee accuracy in our
    judgments (Bond et al, 1992).
   Due to the overwhelming evidence, I agree that
    the average person is no more capable then by
    chance to accurately detect lies in people they
    do not know; however I postulate that our
    abilities to catch a lie are enhanced when the
    sender is someone we do know such as a close
    friend or family member as opposed to a
    complete stranger.
   Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual Differences in Judging Deception:
        Accuracy and Bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477-477-492.
   Bond, C.F., Kahler, K.N., & Paolicelli, L.M. (1985). The Miscommunication of Deception:
        An Adaptive Perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 331-345.
   Bond, C. F., Omar, A., Pitre, U., Lashley, B. R., Skaggs, L. M., & Kirk, C. T. (1992). Fishy-
        Looking Liars: Deception Judgment from Expectancy Violation. Journal of Personality
        and Social Psychology, 63(6), 969-969-977.
   DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal Behavior and Self-Presentation. Psychological Bulletin,
        111(2), 203-243.
   DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.
        (2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-74-118.
   Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting Deception From the Body or Face. Journal of
        Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 288-288-298.
   Elkman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who Can Catch a Liar? American Psychologist, 46,
        913-920.
   Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing Truthful Generalizes Across Different
        Deception Situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 486-486-495.
   Heilveil, I., & Muehleman, J. T. (1981). Nonverbal Clues to Deception in a Psychotherapy
        Analogue. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 18(3), 329-329-335.
   Pennebaker, J. W., & Chew, C. H. (1985). Behavioral Inhibition and Electrodermal
        Activity During Deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1427-
        1427-1433.

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a M7 A2 Psy492

The Truth About Lying
The Truth About LyingThe Truth About Lying
The Truth About LyingBen Hawkes
 
Familiarity and Unfamiliarity in Interpersonal Deception Theory
Familiarity and Unfamiliarity in Interpersonal Deception TheoryFamiliarity and Unfamiliarity in Interpersonal Deception Theory
Familiarity and Unfamiliarity in Interpersonal Deception TheoryDebidatta Dwibedi
 
He Said What - Deception Detection Part 2
He Said What - Deception Detection Part 2He Said What - Deception Detection Part 2
He Said What - Deception Detection Part 2Edward Schwartz
 
Introduction Infomercials and AdvertisementsEvery day we face o.docx
Introduction Infomercials and AdvertisementsEvery day we face o.docxIntroduction Infomercials and AdvertisementsEvery day we face o.docx
Introduction Infomercials and AdvertisementsEvery day we face o.docxmariuse18nolet
 
THE TRUTH ABOUT LYINGBy Allison KornetHas Lying Gotten.docx
THE TRUTH ABOUT LYINGBy Allison KornetHas Lying Gotten.docxTHE TRUTH ABOUT LYINGBy Allison KornetHas Lying Gotten.docx
THE TRUTH ABOUT LYINGBy Allison KornetHas Lying Gotten.docxchristalgrieg
 
The Psychology of Thinking About the Past and Future
The Psychology of Thinking About the Past and FutureThe Psychology of Thinking About the Past and Future
The Psychology of Thinking About the Past and FutureChris Martin
 
Pants on Fire: Advising Students Who Lie to Themselves and Others
Pants on Fire: Advising Students Who Lie to Themselves and OthersPants on Fire: Advising Students Who Lie to Themselves and Others
Pants on Fire: Advising Students Who Lie to Themselves and OthersKatieMcFaddin
 
Research Study Complete
Research Study CompleteResearch Study Complete
Research Study CompleteEmma Cox
 
Running Head MISINFORMATION EFFECT1MISINFORMATION EFFECT2.docx
Running Head MISINFORMATION EFFECT1MISINFORMATION EFFECT2.docxRunning Head MISINFORMATION EFFECT1MISINFORMATION EFFECT2.docx
Running Head MISINFORMATION EFFECT1MISINFORMATION EFFECT2.docxcharisellington63520
 
Simpson_Austin_Thesis Paper
Simpson_Austin_Thesis PaperSimpson_Austin_Thesis Paper
Simpson_Austin_Thesis PaperAustin Simpson
 
The Relationship Between Dark Triad Personality Traits and Belief in a Just W...
The Relationship Between Dark Triad Personality Traits and Belief in a Just W...The Relationship Between Dark Triad Personality Traits and Belief in a Just W...
The Relationship Between Dark Triad Personality Traits and Belief in a Just W...Jamie Peutherer
 
Christian Perspective On Expectancy Violations Theory
Christian Perspective On Expectancy Violations TheoryChristian Perspective On Expectancy Violations Theory
Christian Perspective On Expectancy Violations TheoryMichelle Adams
 
The Interpersonal Basis of Self-Esteem: Death, Devaluation, or Deference?
The Interpersonal Basis of Self-Esteem:  Death, Devaluation, or Deference?The Interpersonal Basis of Self-Esteem:  Death, Devaluation, or Deference?
The Interpersonal Basis of Self-Esteem: Death, Devaluation, or Deference?suzi smith
 

Similar a M7 A2 Psy492 (20)

The Truth About Lying
The Truth About LyingThe Truth About Lying
The Truth About Lying
 
Familiarity and Unfamiliarity in Interpersonal Deception Theory
Familiarity and Unfamiliarity in Interpersonal Deception TheoryFamiliarity and Unfamiliarity in Interpersonal Deception Theory
Familiarity and Unfamiliarity in Interpersonal Deception Theory
 
Memory for Faces
Memory for FacesMemory for Faces
Memory for Faces
 
Essay On Deception
Essay On DeceptionEssay On Deception
Essay On Deception
 
Accuracy Of An Eyewitness Testimony Essay
Accuracy Of An Eyewitness Testimony EssayAccuracy Of An Eyewitness Testimony Essay
Accuracy Of An Eyewitness Testimony Essay
 
He Said What - Deception Detection Part 2
He Said What - Deception Detection Part 2He Said What - Deception Detection Part 2
He Said What - Deception Detection Part 2
 
Introduction Infomercials and AdvertisementsEvery day we face o.docx
Introduction Infomercials and AdvertisementsEvery day we face o.docxIntroduction Infomercials and AdvertisementsEvery day we face o.docx
Introduction Infomercials and AdvertisementsEvery day we face o.docx
 
THE TRUTH ABOUT LYINGBy Allison KornetHas Lying Gotten.docx
THE TRUTH ABOUT LYINGBy Allison KornetHas Lying Gotten.docxTHE TRUTH ABOUT LYINGBy Allison KornetHas Lying Gotten.docx
THE TRUTH ABOUT LYINGBy Allison KornetHas Lying Gotten.docx
 
The Psychology of Thinking About the Past and Future
The Psychology of Thinking About the Past and FutureThe Psychology of Thinking About the Past and Future
The Psychology of Thinking About the Past and Future
 
Deception Vs Deception
Deception Vs DeceptionDeception Vs Deception
Deception Vs Deception
 
Pants on Fire: Advising Students Who Lie to Themselves and Others
Pants on Fire: Advising Students Who Lie to Themselves and OthersPants on Fire: Advising Students Who Lie to Themselves and Others
Pants on Fire: Advising Students Who Lie to Themselves and Others
 
Writing Sample
Writing SampleWriting Sample
Writing Sample
 
Research Study Complete
Research Study CompleteResearch Study Complete
Research Study Complete
 
Running Head MISINFORMATION EFFECT1MISINFORMATION EFFECT2.docx
Running Head MISINFORMATION EFFECT1MISINFORMATION EFFECT2.docxRunning Head MISINFORMATION EFFECT1MISINFORMATION EFFECT2.docx
Running Head MISINFORMATION EFFECT1MISINFORMATION EFFECT2.docx
 
Whaley Paper Two
Whaley Paper TwoWhaley Paper Two
Whaley Paper Two
 
Simpson_Austin_Thesis Paper
Simpson_Austin_Thesis PaperSimpson_Austin_Thesis Paper
Simpson_Austin_Thesis Paper
 
The Relationship Between Dark Triad Personality Traits and Belief in a Just W...
The Relationship Between Dark Triad Personality Traits and Belief in a Just W...The Relationship Between Dark Triad Personality Traits and Belief in a Just W...
The Relationship Between Dark Triad Personality Traits and Belief in a Just W...
 
Christian Perspective On Expectancy Violations Theory
Christian Perspective On Expectancy Violations TheoryChristian Perspective On Expectancy Violations Theory
Christian Perspective On Expectancy Violations Theory
 
The Interpersonal Basis of Self-Esteem: Death, Devaluation, or Deference?
The Interpersonal Basis of Self-Esteem:  Death, Devaluation, or Deference?The Interpersonal Basis of Self-Esteem:  Death, Devaluation, or Deference?
The Interpersonal Basis of Self-Esteem: Death, Devaluation, or Deference?
 
Eyewitness Testimony Essay
Eyewitness Testimony EssayEyewitness Testimony Essay
Eyewitness Testimony Essay
 

M7 A2 Psy492

  • 3. Can the average person accurately detect deception by means of analyzing the sender’s non- verbal cues?  Although it is believed that we do rely heavily on non-verbal cues when interacting with others, the current literature suggest the answer to the this question is no.  While we may rely on non-verbal communication as an indicator of truthfulness, there is no guarantee that our observations are accurate (Bond et al, 1992).
  • 4. Individual differences in the ability to detect lies (Bond & DePaulo, 2008)  Physiological changes related to lying (Pennebaker & Chew, 1985)  How to appear truthful when telling lies (Frank & Ekman, 2004)
  • 5. Bond and DePaulo (2008) found that there were no differences among individual’s ability to detect lies.  Frank and Ekman (2004) mention in their research article that, “Research has shown that facial signs of fear, distress, or enjoyment can and do betray deception”.  The major differences between the articles of interest have to do with the specific aspects of truthfulness or lying that the researches are interested in.
  • 6. Bond, Omar, Pitre, et al (1992) determined in their study that lie detection judgments are barely more accurate than chance.  According to Bond, Kahler, & Paolicelli (1985) the majority of individuals can hardly determine dishonesty from honesty  However, Ekman & O’Sullivan (1991) imply that some people have the special ability of detecting lies.
  • 7. Although the researchers may disagree on the various aspects of lying and the best means of detecting them, it appears that they all agree that (regardless of whether or not are judgments are accurate) we depend on nonverbal cues as a means of drawing a conclusion and determining truth from fiction.  It also appears that the majority of researchers do not feel that it is possible to detect deception via nonverbal behaviors accurately, even with the use of mechanical lie detectors there is always room for inconsistencies.
  • 8. As seen through the review of related literature the prevailing arguments about the average person’s ability to detect deceptions appears to be that we are not capable of accurately judging truths from lies, at least not anymore capable then we are by chance (Bond, 1992, & DePaulo, 2008).  The second prevailing argument is that even given all of the research to support this consensus, human beings consistently relies on such forms of nonverbal behavioral cues.
  • 9. When the sender deviates from social norms or expected behaviors, we naturally become suspicious. Such deviations aid in our decision making as to whether or not a person is being deceitful, but do not guarantee accuracy in our judgments (Bond et al, 1992).
  • 10. Due to the overwhelming evidence, I agree that the average person is no more capable then by chance to accurately detect lies in people they do not know; however I postulate that our abilities to catch a lie are enhanced when the sender is someone we do know such as a close friend or family member as opposed to a complete stranger.
  • 11. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual Differences in Judging Deception: Accuracy and Bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477-477-492.  Bond, C.F., Kahler, K.N., & Paolicelli, L.M. (1985). The Miscommunication of Deception: An Adaptive Perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 331-345.  Bond, C. F., Omar, A., Pitre, U., Lashley, B. R., Skaggs, L. M., & Kirk, C. T. (1992). Fishy- Looking Liars: Deception Judgment from Expectancy Violation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 969-969-977.  DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal Behavior and Self-Presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 203-243.  DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-74-118.  Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting Deception From the Body or Face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 288-288-298.  Elkman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who Can Catch a Liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.  Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing Truthful Generalizes Across Different Deception Situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 486-486-495.  Heilveil, I., & Muehleman, J. T. (1981). Nonverbal Clues to Deception in a Psychotherapy Analogue. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 18(3), 329-329-335.  Pennebaker, J. W., & Chew, C. H. (1985). Behavioral Inhibition and Electrodermal Activity During Deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1427- 1427-1433.

Notas del editor

  1. Introducing the topic of deception and stating the major findings.
  2. Researchers each have their own approach to studying deception. Some are interesting in individual differences in the ability to detect lies (Bond & Depaulo, 2008), others are interesting in physiological changes related to lying (Pennebaker & Chew, 1985), even still some are interested in how to appear truthful when telling lies Frank & Ekman, 2004).
  3. Some of the findings appear to be somewhat contradicting, but we must keep in mind that each of these researchers were interested in different aspects of deception.
  4. This is a list of the various conclusions each researcher came to based on their own studies.
  5. Although there are many differences in opinions, there are certain aspects of deception that the majority of scholars do agree on.
  6. Conclusion and prevailing arguments based on the literature review.
  7. Prevailing Arguments continued….
  8. Discussion on further research related to the topic of deception. Intuition tells us that we are likely more accurate at detecting lies from those who we have a relationship with. Future research might investigate such intuitions and if it is found to be true might investigate why.