I have read the terms and conditions. Surely the single greatest lie ever told, certainly in terms of the volume of us who have ticked that box knowing that really we haven’t. However, deception breeds deception and with now defunct computer game shop Gamestation taking advantage of the aforementioned ‘fib’ by fiendishly incorporating into the smallprint of their online terms and conditions- that they owned the very soul of anyone whom blindly ticked the box -‘the immortal soul clause’ as it was called. Over 7.500 people were caught out on April 1st 2010- they were refunded their soul in an email.
However lying, deception, untruthful, false, dishonest, mendacious, perfidious, duplicitous, dissimulating, dissembling and double Janus-facedness is a normal human behaviour, not just human, animals deceive too. Koko the Gorilla had been taught sign language and ruthlessly blamed the ripping out of a sink from a wall on her pet kitten (Koko signed on the return of her keepers…..”The cat did it!”). If we are to take an evolutionary view it is a survival mechanism, a simple smile to someone you despise or you feel threatened by is a useful tactic to hide any weaknesses that may be exploited by them and hide, deceive them of your true feelings. However false smiles can be detected if you know where to look – the muscles that generate a warm and honest smile are different to those that are created when creating a false smile. It’s all in the eyes…you see.
Those lying eyes
The eyes truly are the window to the soul. However don’t be fooled by so called Neuro Linguistic Programming techniques (a good example of pseudoscience) that if someone is looking up when telling you something then they are lying there is little evidence to support this but is something that your hear still being pedled around every now and then.
And there lies the crux of the matter…are there any reliable physical cues to deception? Maybe a more fundamental question is are there any universal responses of facial expression or body language? (The eyebrow flash for recognition of someone is thought to be pretty universal as an involuntary response.) Certainly classic research by Ekman into facial expression has suggested that there are a handful of truly universal expressions. However deceivingly there is a long tradition of supposed cues to deception or ‘tells’ as gamblers would say little unconscious signs of anxiety, uncertainty due to knowingly attempting to convince someone of something you know not to be true. Going red, not being able to look someone in the eye, looking at someone for too long in the eye, rubbing the back of the neck, rubbing the ear lobes, scratching the nose, excessive blinking (note that psychopaths reportedly blink less and maybe that is why they are better at deceiving people) are all ways many think they can spot a liar – but where does the truth lie?
Bad Lie detectors
Many of these are signs of anxiety not necessarily deception, however Polygraphs (aka lie detectors) have been used for many years in criminal investigations in the United States (and on the Jeremy Kyle show) and provided as evidence, however it measures variations in physiological arousal (not lying) and therefore fundamentally flawed, the American Psychological Association concluded:
The development of currently used “lie detection” technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems highly problematic.
For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph. Cited; http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
Good lie detectors
Where humans on average can detect lies at marginally above chance level – 54% but surely professionals such as Police officers are better? When Samantha Mann conducted research into a new area of lie detection and found some interesting results, there seemed to be a greater emphasis on story cues rather than the historic notion body language cues of the more experienced and stronger lie detectors used in the research. Detecting true lies; Police officers abilities to detect true lies. Mann and Vrij’s research supports the view that often the focus on lie detection is in behavioural cues rather than the more accurate experienced police officers who also rely on story cues as a method of detection.
There have been a number of publications integrating a range of approaches to lie detection.
Here is an overview of an alternative piece of research conducted by Mann and Vrij investigating high stake liars.
Professor David Canter and colleague Dr John Synnott may be about to turn the whole area on its head with current research taking place at the Centre for Investigative Psychology on revisiting the use of polygraph techniques in the UK.
The BBC recently compiled a practical overview of lie detection – View it here.
The fun of deception
However, the detection of lies can be fun……………..in a light entertainment kind of way. The story cues on the clip below may seem so far fetched that it must be a lie…it must be………..mustn’t it?