1 / 20

High stakes lies: Identifying and using cues to deception and honesty in appeals for missing and murdered relatives

High stakes lies: Identifying and using cues to deception and honesty in appeals for missing and murdered relatives. Clea Wright Whelan, Graham F. Wagstaff & Jacqueline Wheatcroft Witness Research Group University of Liverpool Funded by ESRC. Analysing appeals.

tibor
Télécharger la présentation

High stakes lies: Identifying and using cues to deception and honesty in appeals for missing and murdered relatives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. High stakes lies: Identifying and using cues to deception and honesty in appeals for missing and murdered relatives Clea Wright Whelan, Graham F. Wagstaff & Jacqueline Wheatcroft Witness Research Group University of Liverpool Funded by ESRC

  2. Analysing appeals • Commonly recognised that majority of deception studies have low ecological validity (DePaulo & Morris, 2004; Granhag & Stromwall, 2004; Porter & ten Brinke, 2010; Vrij, 2004). In forensic contexts lies are likely to be high stake (serious consequences) -> difficult to replicate in the lab -> very little research looking at high stakes lies • Research presented here attempted to address this issue by investigating a real life, high stake situation • Research questions: Are there consistent patterns of behaviour that differentiate deceptive appeals from honest appeals? Are there behavioural patterns that are context specific?

  3. Current studies Materials: 32 video clips of appeals for missing and murdered relatives • 16 honest appealers (somebody else convicted/relative returned) • 16 deceptive appealers (appealer convicted) • Length: 11 -158 seconds (M = 50.17, SD = 34.82). No effect of length on veracity • Word count: 15 - 336 words (M = 110.81, SD = 80.64). No effect of word count on veracity Cues investigated: • Wright Whelan &Wagstaff (2009), Wright Whelan, Wagstaff & Wheatcroft (2011) identified several cues that may be relevant in high stake situations, and some cues that may be context specific • Cues identified in previous research on high stake lies in other contexts (Adams & Jarvis, 2006; Davis et al, 2005; Hall, 1986; Harpster & Adams, 2008; Koper & Salman, 1991; Mann, Vrij & Bull, 2002; Vrij & Mann, 2001)

  4. Study 1: frequency counts of verbal cues • Transcripts of appeals coded for verbal behaviours. • 25% random sample coded by 2nd coder: Inter-rater reliabilities r=.90 to r=1.00. • Frequencies adjusted for word count, reported frequencies are per 100 words

  5. Study 1: frequency counts of verbal cues • Verbal cues to deception • EquivocationF (1,31)=4.79, p=.036 • tentative, noncommital, qualify, minimise, vague, evasive, indicative of uncertainty • Eg. Just, kind of, sort of, like, maybe, guess, possibly, quite, a bit, don’t know, some • Adams & Jarvis (2006), ten Brinke & Porter (2012) • Not context specific • Speech errors (marginal)F (1,31)=3.70, p=.032 (one-tailed) • Grammatical errors, single word consecutive repetition, incomplete/broken sentences, unfinished word/stammer, consecutive phrase repetition • Davis et al (2005), Vrij & Mann (2001) • Not context specific

  6. Study 1: frequency counts of verbal cues • Verbal cues to honesty(Wright Whelan, Wagstaff & Wheatcroft, 2011) • References to normal emotional/behavioural standards, including violations of normsF (1,31)=4.79, p=.036 • Eg. ‘any parent knows how we feel’ ‘we don’t understand why anybody would hurt her’ ‘how could somebody do this’ • Cross context? Context specific? • Expressions of hope (n=20) F (1,19)=5.96, p=.025 • Any expression which indicated hope of finding the missing person alive • Eg. ‘I’m waiting for you’ ‘I think she’s out there somewhere’ ‘let’s find her’ ‘we believe that she will be brought home soon’ • Context specific • Expressions of concern/pain (marginal) F(1,31)=3.71, p=.032 (one-tailed) • Concern for victim, missing the victim, wanting victim back, expressions of grief or pain (1st person) Eg. ‘we need you back with us our hearts are breaking’ • Context specific

  7. Study 1: frequency counts of verbal cues • Verbal cue to honesty(Wright Whelan, Wagstaff & Wheatcroft, 2011) • Positive descriptions of victim/expressions of love for victim χ2(1)=4.50, p=.034 • coded dichotomously • Expressing love/positive feeling for victim (1st person), terms of endearment • Eg. ‘we all love you very much’ ‘he was my life, he was my soulmate’ ‘I love you so much honey’ ‘he was a wonderful man’ • Positive descriptions/expressions of love more likely to be present in honest appeals (n=11 or 69%) than in deceptive appeals (n=5 or 31%) • Context specific

  8. Study 2: frequency counts of non-verbal cues • Video clips of appeals coded for non-verbal behaviours. • 25% random sample coded by 2nd coder: Inter-rater reliabilities r=.933 to r=.998 . • Frequencies adjusted for length, reported frequencies are per 100 seconds

  9. Study 1: frequency counts of non-verbal cues • Non-verbal cues to deception • Gaze aversion (n=19)F (1, 18)= 7.16, p=.016 Generally dismissed as cue to deception (low stake studies) -> may have relevance when stakes are high • Wright Whelan & Wagstaff (2009): appeals • Vrij & Mann (2001): police interview with murder suspect • DePaulo et al (2003): when moderated by strong motivation to succeed in lie • Not context specific • Head shakingF (1, 31)= 4.32, p=.046 • Mann, Vrij & Bull (2006) police suspect interviews • Davis et al (2005) criminal suspect statements; non-verbal overdone/protesting too much -> Exaggerating behaviour in an attempt to appear credible? • Not context specific

  10. An example of an honest appeal: missing daughter Cues related to honesty Describe victim positively/expressions of love References to norms of emotion/behaviour Expressions of hope (expressions of concern/pain) Cues related to deception Equivocation Gaze aversion Headshaking (speech errors)

  11. An example of an honest appeal Verbal cues to honesty: References to norms of emotion/behaviour Positive descriptions/ expressions of love Expressions of hope (Concern for victim/expressions of pain) We all miss her and love her very much/ / contact the police department / anybody who has any information / and whoever has children out there knows how much / / their child means to them / allow them to bring her home safely to us / Shaniya if you’re listening to daddy / I miss you so muchhoney and I’m waiting for you / I’m not gonna give up and you don’t give up eitherhoney

  12. An example of an honest appeal Verbal cues to deception: equivocation (Speech errors) We all miss her and love her very much/ / contact the police department / anybody who has any information / and whoever has children out there knows how much / / their child means to them / allow them to bring her home safely to us / Shaniya if you’re listening to daddy / I miss you so much honey and I’m waiting for you / I’m not gonna give up and you don’t give up either honey

  13. An example of a deceptive appeal: missing wife Cues related to honesty Describe victim positively/expressions of love References to norms of emotion/behaviour Expressions of hope (expressions of concern/pain) Cues related to deception Equivocation Gaze aversion Headshaking (speech errors)

  14. An example of a deceptive appeal Verbal cues to honesty: References to norms of emotion/behaviour Positive descriptions/ expressions of love Expressions of hope (Concern for victim/expressions of pain) I woke at about eight / recognised that she hadn’t awakened me when she came home from running / um / but didn’t think much of it she often does that if I’m / tired or something she’ll just out of respect / I guess just let me sleep / um / and I often drive her to work today she wanted to drive herself then I called her at about ten o’clock / to / just say hi see how she was doing and they told me she / / sorry Unseen person: she never got to work She she never made it in this morning

  15. An example of a deceptive appeal Verbal cues to deception: Equivocation (Speech errors) I woke at about eight / recognised that she hadn’t awakened me when she came home from running / um / but didn’t think much of it she often does that if I’m / tired or something she’ll just out of respect / I guessjust let me sleep / um / and I often drive her to work today she wanted to drive herself then I called her at about ten o’clock / to / just say hi see how she was doing and they told me she / / sorry Unseen person: she never got to work She shenever made it in this morning

  16. Application: Case by case analyses Combining information from discriminatory cues to predict veracity Question: is this person lying? -> On how many cues do they score as we would expect a deceptive appealer to score? Case 1 Case 2

  17. Application: Case by case analyses Case by case analyses Deceptive appeals: 12 correctly classified (scored above 50% ‘hits’) 2 misclassified (scored below 50% ‘hits’) 2 unclassified (scored 50% ‘hits’) Honest appeals: 13 correctly classified (scored below 50% ‘hits’) 2 misclassified (scored above 50% ‘hits’) 1 unclassified (scored 50% ‘hits’) Total: 25 correctly classified 4 misclassified 3 unclassified 86% hit rate

  18. Study 3: observer ratings of other behaviours • Subjective ratings by untrained observers of other behaviours identified in Wright Whelan, Wagstaff & Wheatcroft (2011). • Summary of cues (IRR + discriminated deceptive/honest appeals): • Possible to reach useful consensus on subjective cues. • Untrained observers were able to distinguish genuine from fake emotion: deceptive appealershonest appealers fake emotion genuinely sad, sad eyes fake facial expression genuine & heartfelt, urgency performance personal, expressive & involved voice quivering with emotion • Observers had negative personal reaction to liars deceptive appealershonest appealers dislike appealer feel appealer’s pain no sympathy for appealer feel sorry for appealer • Are people who tell this type of lie qualitatively different? deceptive appealershonest appealers unnatural normal creepy plausible • These cues didn’t improve accuracy in predicting deception when used with other verbal and non-verbal cues, but may be helpful in cases which are difficult to classify – current research

  19. In conclusion • Some findings support previous research on cues to deception in high stake lies (equivocation, speech errors, headshaking, gaze aversion) -> may apply across high stake situations • Some findings previously uninvestigated and likely to be context specific (positive/love, hope, concern/pain). References to norms? When we only look for cues that are reliable across contexts, we may be missing valuable information that can help us make accurate credibility judgements within specific contexts -> Useful to identify cues that are reliable across contexts, and also cues that are reliable within contexts • Observer accuracy -> implications of using ecologically valid materials • Possible implications of some subjective cues: characteristics of deceivers, as well as their acts of deception -> type of person that tells high stake lies

More Related