Emotion Recognition Training and Deception Detection: Importance of the type of lie told Mircea Zloteanu (
[email protected]) & Daniel C. Richardson University College London
Introduction
Method
Emotion cues relating to the true emotions of a deceiver leak out during deception (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). Research attempting to use such cues has resulted in poor results. A potential issue is the role of moderating factors that determine cue production, such as the stakes to the liar for deceiving. The study investigates the effect of emotion recognition training and bogus training on accuracy in detecting lie where the stakes to the deceiver are either low or high.
Participants 106 participants (22 male, 84 female), with a mean age of 20.9 (SD=4.7). Emotion Recognition Training (n=39), Bogus Training (n=38), and No training (n=29).
Hypotheses 1. Emotion recognition training will result in improved truth detection but will hinder lie detection, for Low-stakes videos. 2. Emotion recognition training will produce overall improvements in deception detection in High-stakes video. 3. Training will increase confidence in veracity decisions as well as affect the veracity bias. Stakes: the motivation that liars receive to perform well. It relates to the rewards and punishment of deceiving
Design 3(ERT vs. BT vs. NT) X 2(Lie or Truth) X 2(High or Low stakes) mixed design. DVs: Truth and Lie accuracy scores, and Confidence. Stimuli 20 videos (10 lies) low-stakes (BDS; Street, et al., 2011). 20 videos (10 lies) high-stakes. High-stakes had two subsets: Emotional and Unemotional lies (Warren, Schertler & Bull, 2009). - Lie type □ Low-stakes not motivated to lie
□ High-stakes told performance would be rated they could win £10
• In low-stakes lies, emotion cues may be limited and not very intense • in high-stakes lies, where arousal is higher, cue production should increase
(HS) Emotional lied while watching negatively arousing videos
(HS) Unemotional lied while watching neutral videos
Results • Training had no effect on accuracy, confidence or bias. • Participants had higher accuracy on Low-stakes compared to Highstakes videos.
METT training task SETT training task
70
* Overall Accuracy %
Procedure - No training (NT) - Emotion recognition training (ERT) - Bogus training (BT)
60
METT neutral expressions 3 Blocks: slow (1s), medium (.75s), fast (.5s) ERT BT NT
50
40
+
+
What was the person’s eye colour?
1. 2. 3. 4.
Blue Black Brown Green
30 *p (HS) Unemotional
• Truth accuracy: Low-stakes > High-stakes • Lie accuracy: Low-stakes > High-stakes 70
50 40 30
70
60
Overall Accuracy %
60
* Lie detection %
Truth detection %
70
50 40 30
*p Unemotional. The distinction between suppressed and faked emotions seems to explain the accuracy difference in High-stakes lies. References: Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–106; Street, C.N.H., Tbaily, L., Baron, S., Khalil-Marzouk, P., Wright, K., Hanby, B., & Richardson, D.C. (2011). Bloomsbury deception set. Paper presented at the Division of Forensic Psychology Conference, Portsmouth, UK; Warren, G., Schertler E., & Bull, P. (2009). Detecting deception from emotional and unemotional cues. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 59-69.
