Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Detecting Deception From The Body or Face PDF

    Uploaded by

    gundahahaha
    17 views11 pages

    Original Title

    Detecting-Deception-From-The-Body-Or-Face.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views11 pages

    Detecting Deception From The Body or Face PDF

    Uploaded by

    gundahahaha

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    @hBhae kha wea we bee ee ee le SR BRS aa Petes DETECTING DECEPTION FROM THE BODY OR FACE' PAUL BKMAN? University of California, San Francisco alfect aroused by an unpleasant ted by the Gt hypotheds, the tbe WALLACE V. FRIESEN Langley Porter Newropsychairic Intute, ‘Sen Francico deigned to test two hypotherts concerning. difercnces ‘eccption. Subjects en ‘honest in one interview, frankly describing thir feelings ‘be deceptive in another interview, concealing film and simulating plessant feelings face was mentioned mere often than “uked afterward what behavior should be ‘zzsored or controled in perpetrating deception. Videotapes of the fal and body” behavior during the honest and ‘deceptive interviews were shown to seperate groups of observers. The second hypothesis—that when deceptive ‘accurate Judgments would be made from the boy {trom the face, bat that when honest bebavior was judged, there would bbe ttle erence’ in the accuracy achieved (rom the face or bedy-—was partially supported. Recent interest in body movement and facial expression among behavioral scientists (ci. reviews by Duncan, 1969; Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth, 1972; Harrison, 1973: Knapp, 1972) and’ in the popular press (eg., Fast, 1970) stems in part from the belief that’ nonverbal behavior reveals how people feel, even when they wish to conceal their feelings. The idea that nonverbal ex- pressions of emotion are not as easily cen- sored o disguised as the content of speech is an old one (cf. Darwin, 1955; Freud, 1959) and a recurrent one (ef. Feldman, 1959; Goffman, 1959; Ruesch & Kees, 1956). Despite this long history, there have been ao data to support such claims, nor has there been thorough description or ‘theoreti- cal explanation of how nonverbal behavior right escape efforts to censor interpersonal communication. Ekman and Friesen (1969) recently pro- posed that certain aspects of nonverbal be- hhavior might escape censorship or serve to maintain deception more than others. They proposed that when an individual is engaged Th roearch was supported by Research Scen- tues Development Award -RO2-MEDEOS2 and by Research Grant MH 1197606 fom the National Tatts of Mental Health. We are indebted t0 Prtscla Garlan for ber editorial help. Raquests for reprints shoud be sent to Paul ‘man Uaiversty of Cabfornay 405 Fourth Ave: tue, San Francco, California 948, in deception, his body, more than his face, is a source of leakage (i, the nonverbal act reveals a message otherwise being concealed) and deception clues (i.e, the nonverbal act suggests that deception is occurring but does ‘not reveal the concealed message). This art cle reports a partial test of that proposition. ‘Ekman and Friesen reasoned that for both neuroanatomical and sociocultural reasons ‘most individuals in Western cultures grow up subject to more commentary, instruct and reinforcement on theit facial activity than on their body movement during conver behavior, the greater social accountability for what is shown on the face, results in greater awareness of ongving facial activity and better retrieval for the purpose of simu- lation. Although people could lie with the body as with the face, Ekman and Friesen claimed they do so less frequently. Hypothesis 1. When asked what behavior they thought of censoring or employing in simulation, subjects who have just engaged in a deceptive interaction will mention the face more often than the body. Ekman and Friesen reasoned that as a result of the greater focus on the face than the body, when people attempt to conceal actual feelings and to simulate emotions not felt, they disguise the face more than the Derecrine Deceprion From THE Bopy on Face 289 body, they are typically lies of omission, not lies of commission. Ekman and Friesen noted iH cet i il if limited, however, to situations the person is engaged in deception. we is no deception, when communi- frank, then there should be little difference in the information provided frum the face and body. Hypothesis 2. When observers are required to judge whether a person is honest or decep- tive, more accurate judgments will be made from the body than from the face when de- ceptive behavior is considered; when honest behavior is considered, there ‘will be little Uiflerence in accuracy between judgments of the face and body. Pilot studies suggested that there are marked idiosyneracies in a persoa’s repertoire of both facial and body behavior when no attempt has been made experimentally to arouse intense affect. Without knowledge of these idiosyneracies, observers might miscon- strue the behavior when judging whether a person is deceptive. This consideration led to the decision to test Hypothesis 2 with ‘groups of observers who were given some acquaintance with each person's nonverbal behavior, as well as with groups who had no ‘such additional information. gan Bis ure ‘Marioo Deception Situation ‘An interaction in which deception was central was devised, ‘Desed on "Ekman and Frisen's (1969) description of the four dimensions which distinguish deceptive interncions: the saliency of the deception, ‘he stakes for suces, the balance of roles and the ‘tent of antagonisn between deceiver and deceived Shout the maintenance of deception, Saliency was tchieved by instructing both interviewer and subject that in any one of their four interviews, the subject might be required to. decive the interviewer. An~ lagonism was ceated by informing the subject and the interviewer that the subject was to attempt to mislead the interviewer, if 20 required while the interviewer's aim was to uncover any such action, High stakes for sucess in deception were aitempted by (e) tling the subjects that succes le deception was relevant. to. thei chosen profesional careers () having the dean of their schoo! invite them to participate; and (e) tein the subjcts that prior esearch hud shown that skied members of their Drofesion are successful deceives inthis experiment (pilot studies bad suggeted that this was 10). The balance of roles was. achieved by instructing the subjects that part of ther task was to detect whether the interviewer was being misled ‘The deception was requircd to include both the withholding of an aroused nezative affect and the ulation of another act. 11 only che latter were Fequred, there might be deception clues to the fact that the postive affect was simulated, and some Teskage of anxity or gilt about success im dec ut with the requirement that another alect Concealed, there would be gresler obtaining, ‘demonstrable leakage A stream was used {ov arvune negative afect, and the instructions required that the subject convince the interviewer that the subject was seeing a pleas Ant rather than 2 stressful fim. A simple scerario as provided for the subject to use in the fabrica- ton ‘daring. the deceptive. interview, co minimize dlderences which misht occur as 4 function of sub- Jeet varying falits. in spontaneously imagining what to aay. during deception. In the instructions equiing that the subject conceal negative affect and Simulate pealive alect, a bret description was pro- Wided of the content of the film they were to claim they ad seen; a few postive emotions they were to claim they were experiencing were also described. ‘A Tess deceptive, more honest iteration was aso arranged. A pleasant film was used t0 arouse posi- lve aflect, and instructions required that the subjects truthfully’ deerbe their reactions to the Sie. This was not, however, a totaly relaxed Interaction, since ‘Subjects bebeved that thls abilty to be convincingly fruthful was under scrutiny and germane 10. thelr ature carer. And this more honest interaction was ‘ot expected to be totally (ree of deception, since Subjects might well attempt to conceal any signs ‘of anxiety about thelr sl in being convincingly rush, oe ee ee, oe ee ee ee, ee ee ee ee eee, ee ee ee @Q@euehewe’a wa b&b ew e's we eh es 290 Paut Eqsan ano Wattacr V, FRtisen Four brie{ sitions, each lasting slut seven minutes, “were conic consecutively iti 3 ‘eshour period. In all {our senions dhe subject first watched alm with the intrvicwer tuned Subject and the lm. Alter 80 secon he interviewer turned to face. the subject and ‘continued to ask the subject questions. while the bing viewed by the subject was never "In Seaton 1 and Session 2, the subject = leant fms and was insteuce” to desc an feelings frankly. In’ Session and Session 3, the subject saw stra(al fms, In Sesion 3, the sus fiven motivational iaformation, the interviewer and Subject were falaly told that some subjects would he asked to lie in all four sessions, some in no salons, and some in just one oF two stsions. They were also told ally that the order of the sessions, oth in terme of the lm shown and the instruction Drovided, would vary acrom subjects The purpose ‘Of this alae information was to” prevent the inet- Viewer from knowing ahead of Ue whether 2 Subject might be attempting deception in 2 particur lar setsion. Ae part of this attempt to. misead the interviewer, the actual content of the plousant Bl jm in Seaions 1 and 2 was actually var crore sessions with two exeyptions, In Sesion 3 (0 ception session) and ‘Sesion 4, the interviewer was instructed to challenge the subjcet by asking the subject was really teling the truth. and also by asking if the subject would like to show the fl 12 4 young child. In the other two seaion, in place ‘of theae two. questions the interviewer aked for ‘ociations to the film and descriptions of other iacovered the order of the four seasons, The iat ‘ewer was naive and remained so-about the’ by thesis under study regarding the alference Sa the ‘formation conveyed by the face and the body. Recordings Tw cameras, each connected (o a separate video- tape recorder, recorde the subjeets behavior in the tout “tions. One camera provided 4 dosrap hed-on view of just the subjects face, The other camera showed a head-on view of the entire face and hn the salject ane 2 pro6le view of the ‘ace and bly of the inteviewer. These two tecords ings were ssnchronized by dig adress. placed simultanewusly Uy a computer on ‘beth videotape recordings. ‘The cameras were conceled. Although the subjects knew that an audio recording was being taken, the video recording was not mentioned Until alter the experiment Subjects eginning female nursing students were selected as wubjects for three reasons. Fiat, the ethical prob- lems entailed in showing stress Alms could. be te: ‘duced ith this population. ‘The stress Blas were compo of scenes (rom meial training Slime amputations and the ealment of severe bares Nursing stwlemts by virtue of thee career choles Ihave already elected to view such material at some point in thet career. Sceand, ratfonale could be readily peovided. for thelr eowaging. in deception; ‘namely, a nurse must be able to deccive in certain siivations. For example, ‘when talking. with the family of a severely injured child, she must conceal her own worries or stress and convey. poditive aMfect to reasure the patents. Thied, the stakes for sucess in deception could be made high by telling the nurses that past research bas found experienced rurses to do. very well in the experiment and bY implying that ther behavior in the experoeat. was relevant to thir future carer. “The student nurses were Invited by mal to par- ticipate im the experiment shorty after they ‘bad ‘non sotied of their acceptance in the School of Nursing, but prior to thelr matriculation. All 22 of he students Hving within commuting diatance accepted. After the completion of the experiment, they were informed that their nonverbal behavior had been recorded by hidden cameras and that they had the ight 10 ask that these records be erased. One of the 22 subjects chose to have her records ‘destroyed. Five of the remaining 21 subjects cone {essed during’ the deception senion, Their records were mot considered in the data analyse to. teat Hypothesis 2, since by confessing they falled to provide an adequate sample of behavior while decep- tion was In progress Findiogs on the ditiogulshng ccharateritics of those who confeaed are Teported teow. Judgment Task ‘Two diferent judgment tasks vere employed, To Doth, the obuervers were asked to judge whether & Demectina Drcernion vrow TH+ Boot or Fact 21 sample of nonverbal behavior was frum the more honest or the more deceptive interview; thi wis Presented as a binary choice, Bonet oF dentine a both tasks the same ehavior samples were Judged. In Task A'the observers Judged one sample ‘of nonverbal behavior for each subject without amy familiarity with the ldiosyneracies in the suljct's nonverbal repertoire. In Tusk B the ohwrvers fist sw a videotaped example of the subjects behavior, which was identified as. being, nondeceptive, aml then judged am unidentied sample No example of the subjecu? unual behavive out side of this experiment at been videvtal ie ‘would have been desirable for uae asthe same for familiarity. The dosest approximation was the vi Jets’ behavior during the two honest interview ‘when they were shown a pleasant film and askel to describe” their felines honestly. Self-rep wathered after each interview rated the fist hme Interview a8 siqiicanly Jes pleasant, reas aed nataral than the second’* Both the example snd the ‘hovest sample of the subjets ha fontrast with the decrptive interaction Drawing both the example andthe unilentied sample from the same interviw had undesired cists ‘Task B not only provided familarity with the =ul- fect's behavior, it ‘also incre Bkethowd shat the observers would tase their jurkments wn the Similaty or dilference between the sample to he Judged and the familiarity csample, rather thin on leakate of deception clues; that fs, if 8 sample was similar, it wa honent: It sisimilr, decentive, While {the we of any. baseline sample would allow for such comparisons, the likelihood that the lmervers ‘would employ such a srateey, ani ite chance success, were heighicned in thie experiment If the tesults om Task B vtore to show that the bony wae ‘more accurately judged than the face. a+ pected by Hypothesis 2. it soul ot fe posible to meer” tain whether this ts 40 because the ody rovies more leakage and deception cles than the lace, of tore simply that between the deceptive sind the Ionest interview, there are more iferences in the appearance of the body than of the face ‘The familiarity example wus drawn {rom two ‘ples In the honest interview which the subject Nad rated as most pleasant: the subjects anewer to the Interviewers frst question ‘during. the film. ‘watching porton of the Interview (What kinds of feelings are you having right now?") and the sub- jects reply fo the interviewers frst question alter the fim was over ("How ate sou feeling now that "The diferences on the ratings of the two honest Interviews where’ pleasant film ‘had been shown were prodiced. Pilot studies had suggested that i the intial sesion subjects were MI at east about ‘what was required of them, and a second. honest Seaton wat included in the experiment in once to ‘obtain a more relaxed sample. the fim te over), The anion sample rom the hom avi wae compe two dest “Diane the side ropome tthe interviews Seon arson ving the Bm watching What iad "mt dw the fn cee?) apd the ‘contact eth watching Wat Sher aperente hiv Sew hel tat crete te Soe etn a ce Ba Toc the sce samp (wo voids were a tected trom te cptve interview: the sje ropome ti rt quion dig he im wath Ae Cavha inteof ec= ae fou bavi gh tne?) am gt que ater the Sl watching Whee sr walt elim me the ath? 30 think eins a “The raf the fanny emampte wat allt to vary acts suets opening ra iow tenho tat orp aut Wan aitiys es than to mina he daration Cae howe leer sphere Som ‘Sbjct ht war match Tor cach sale ty od jaatne the kath nthe oe simple tha Be tect sample. A ders at samplog tre aa rom tots the inevies wahe ran teen the setae een Once “Soviet bod een ser however iets ef deculbe. cer nal tr neath ‘eating tn clea when dhe cube! was avin Tour iboayes yore mate har Tk Be two shaine the salt ce iy al tee owing ihe mini ike fate wa’ Mckee tchstion nmin), Esch tae oo Th gts bar swe whee hr thereto resp) "Eke eben “sing eh samp toe Feit, serine othe tainty ume for thar je wich we held sen example of the abject bev whe she wae hone Sat varetapes rr nds for Tak A, tie min the te sata en ie the tami ior ements Rein var vets somttnl the ‘hatin al Tait hoch oy oe simple Cami home Fete) for ach bet ae titel in ao oe te “ne iter cen tthe baeser prot ss mack informaion sr as I ven hte abut the mature the ones andrei interes Servers were tld thet the parse of the tay seas fo examine shat people could kara rm oh Serving the ace oy tat the opts fox mentonet Th wet tht Ta {he lampler wou ary tht one purpow af the ‘Spetineat want uy hw dnt ae acted Ep he ae of the sample, and that the duration of Sesame ap mcd wht the sal tres howe or erptive, The ne was ied he Shen orto ec te ond da oe ‘Seve wll tempt tobe thie hows ‘Eeopive Judemente they were fe told Tht terranaat conain aN akenpive ample, ll Manet sample, or we ach Thee wee oe oe en ee oe ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ae ee a aie aR a : Hae ay ay yi Het its oH iil 1] xi nuit ele Y pepecee eee 3 ! i te a ih iar ae i 7 sy g ite iif fo ua ee it lh; un tile i ji ea i rl | pail AH ht ge pe Pes ee ee Pees ee es Drrecrme Deception yom tm Boor on Face 293 lying. The results of observers’ judgments of the confessors’ face and body during the hhonest and deceptive interviews were ex. cluded from the data analysis testing Hy- pothesis 2 because these subjects confessed so early in the deceptive session that only a very brief sample of their behavior prior to confession was available. While this experi- ‘ment was not designed to investigate the characteristics of those who confessed, it was of interest to learn about the segment of the population for whom Hypothesis 2 does not apply. One possibility was that the confessors ‘were more upset by the stress film than were the nonconfessors and failed to maintain the deception because of greater negative affect srousal. The data available failed to support this explanation. After each interview the subjects had rated their feelings about the films om 10 unipolar emotion scales. There were no significant differences between the confessors and nonconfessors. ‘There were no other data available on the subjects. Despite the inherent problems in © post facto testing, all 21 subjects were oniacted six months later to explore indi- vidual diferences. A. number of tests were included which collegues bad suggested might explain why some of the subjects had confessed. The results were notable for a lack of differences between confessors and" non confessors. They did not differ on the Vo. Cabulary or Comprehension test from the ‘Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 1955), the Mach V (Christie, 1970), the Interpersonal Check List (Leary, 1955), the Gotichaldt Figures Test (Crutchield, 1950), ‘Thurstone’s adaptation of the Stroop Color. Word Test (Thurstone, 1944), or on 15 of the 18 California Psychological Inventory scales (Gough, 1957). The comfessors, had higher scores than the nonconfesers on the Self Acceptance scale (= 2.91, p= Ol), the Achievemeat via Independence sale (¢= 387, 9.01), and the Flexibility sale 51, p = 05). Because these differences on the California Psychological Inventory had not been predicted, because most. of the scales on this test faled to show difer- ences. and because the other personality, cognitivestyle, and intelligence ‘teste also failed to show difference, it is hard to place much coafdence in these few. signifcant findings. Another possibility explored was that the comfessors might have been less motivated to trcome nurses, of t0 participate in the ex. periment, and therefore did not work as hard ‘in the most difficult phase of the experiment. ‘maintaining deception. Fight quentons de signed to measure motivation to. become nurse failed to. show any diference. Two questions about the relevance of the expert. ‘eat to mursing did show differences. ‘The confessors showed significantly less agreement vith the statements, “The ability to: conceal feelings. inthis experiment is relevant to evaluating most people's potential as a nurse” ee on 6s ee oe ee an ae en fe eee an os op an) oe hehewwee’a We dee ee wae Se 204 Pauw Exsay anp Wattace V. PRESEN « 7, p= 05) and “to evaluating my potential as a nurse” (t= ~4.54, p= OL), On the other hand, the confessors, like the onconfessors, stronyly ayreed with the state- ment, “I thought my participation in this experiment was very relevant wv my profes- sional goal of becoming a ntirse.” Abo the coniessors, like the nonconfessors, stronely endorsed the statements, “The ability to con ceal is very relevant in evaluating the poten tial of a nurse” and “In my intended area of ‘nursing specialty it is very important tw be able to conceal one’s feelings.” {t woud seem then that the confessors were similar t0 the onconfessors in motivation to become nurses, in believing the ability to conceal is relevant to nursing, and in thinking the experiment was useful. But the confessors did not think their failure to maintain deception in the experiment was a mark against them. ‘This finding seems particularly vulnerable tw after-the-fact testing. The confessurs. more than the noncontessors, reported. T tended to worry about the experiment a lit after it over” (F-= 3.64, p= 01) In interviews immediately after the espe: ment. most of the cifessors described! then selves as generally unable ws hide theie fret ings from others. On the basis of this le a true-false questionnaire wis comypesedl ul fight items, such as “IPT want tu Pe tl others and make them think { feel a ceetaia way when I ceally don't.” On this test of selfsrepurted ability to control the slisplay of feelings, the confesurs teveived a haver score than the moncuniessars (P= —3.45, 2 =01), andl there was no overlap between the scores of the cunfessors and muncvnies- sors. This difference was supported by the finding that coniessors agreed less than the nonconiessors with the statements, “Ta fessional life I conceal very well” (1 = ~ 3.36, 2 = 01) and “In personal life { ennceal very wel” (f= —2.54, p = 05) Discussion ‘The main purpose of this experiment was to test bypotheses derive from Ekman and Friesen’s (1969) theory of nonverbal leakage about differences heween the tac anil borly ‘There are tow central and lovically related propositions in that formulation, ‘The first Proposition maintains that peuple are gen- erally more aware of their facial behavior than theie bodily activity and therefore will be more likely to diseuise the face than the body. The results confirming the rst hy- pothesis supported this thinking. Among sub- jects who had attempted to deceive, more mentioned attempting to disguise the face than the body. ‘The proposition that people attempt to lie more with the face than the body is the basis for the second proposition, that the body swore than the face gives deception clues and leaks the withheld information. On the basis ot such proposed dliferences in facial and body ehavior, the second hypothesis pre- dicted that observers’ judgments of ‘whether someune is honest or deceptive would be more accurate if deceptive behavior was judged ‘when the body was viewed. than when the face was viewed, but not if honest behavior ‘was judged. The results only partially sup- ported the Second hypothesis, There was no iifeence in accuracy between the body and the face when the observers had no prior familigiy with the subjects’ nonverbal rep- ertoire. {t was unly when the observers saw ample of each jerson’s behavior from the honest interview which was ilentifed as non- ileceptive behavior that more accurate juds- ents were inade from the body than from the fie. Ia that jlement task the observers tsay sell have mate their decisions by com- paring the behavior to be judged with the identified honest sample, calling the unidenti- Vid sample honest if it appeared similar and cleveprive if it looked diferent. The fact that accuracy was higher for the body than for the face under such eiteumstanees means that cnupacisons were of Tittle utility for the face laut profitable for the body. Presumably this difference fs explained by the reasoning which ie tw Hypothesis 2. Tf people eo indeed lie with the face, then comparing the face during sleception with the honest face would not be ‘oF much use, since che facial behavior in de- eption would be disguised to look like the honest example. If people do not so manage their bovly behavior. then comparing a sample cot henly behavior suring deception ‘with an ccxample of Eonest boy behavinr should re- wal dferences Detective Diceerion rRoxt THE Roov ok Fack 295 While judgments were more accurate from the body than the face, in accurdance with Hypothesis 2, this was so only when Task B was employed, during which the observers ‘could compare the behavior they judged with the familiarity example; therefore, ambi- ‘euity remains about the basis of the more ac ‘curate judginents. Is it that the observers recognized the signs of leakage and deception clues when they compared the body behavior uring deception with the familiarity exam- ple? Or. is it more simply that the observers noticed differences between the body behavior shown jn the deceptive interview and. the familiarity example, without reading these differences as leakage or deception clues? ‘While either possibility is consistent with the reasoning which led to Hypothesis 2, the data from the experiment do not allow a choice Other studies of the honest and deceptive interviews will clarify this issue and more tly test Ekman and Friesen's theory of ‘nonverbal leakaxe and deception clues. Mlea- ‘surements of the behavior itself should show similarity in the iacial behavior between the hhonest and deceptive interviews and show difference in the body behavior. Such mea surement is under way. but only hand muve. ments have been analyzed to date. Results fare encouraging. showing the theoretically Predicted chanves in particular classes of hand movements frum honest. to deceptive interviews." Another approach would he to show observers simples of honest behavins and samples of leceptive hehavior without providing any iniormation abut the situa. tion. Juements on scales. such as relaxed tense and pleasant unple:ssant should. shuw ‘more similarity between honest and deceptive wines 0 date show that what Ekman and Friesen (1969) ‘have defined ax hand. flirts Accreaed from honest to deceptive interview, while the hand shrug emblem increased and the 1aepay of thee measurements re complete, wail rove the mot det tet ‘of Eat and ricer theory of nonverbal lesage and denies he facial Iehavior than Hetween homes ante ceptive oy behavior. "The fact that there was mo liference in accuracy between the face and body when the behavior wat judged without the opportunity for compariton with im example of honest behavior seat thatthe diferences in body lehavior during deception vere in the form of deception clues rather than leakage. Tt there had been leakage of nezative afect, presumably the observers would have knows the subject was being’ deceptive. without needing to compare the body with the honest example. Tt the body instead” provided only deception clies—some sin nt smething tras amiss but not the acl negative alec then judging these body movements 35 evi dence of deception might not have been posi. ble witout familarity with the pers boty behavior when hones The findinus were somewhat equivocal in cezard to the part of Hypothesis 2, which had predicted that accuracy would be grater for the body than for the face only when deceptive behavior was evaluated. Among ob servers who ha een sven a fant ex- ample, there was a simifican. difeence be. ten beriy ad face, a8 had been prediced, then the deceptive behave was jude but Contrary to expectation, there as a marked thourh not sizficant, cr nthe same rection when the honest behavior was judged ‘The nature of the julement task may have worked against Hypothesis 2. Since the jude ment choice was binary receptive or ovat, iT the body did provide accurate information when simeune way tnstsceplive. servers tht Tuve male accurate decisions about the mre honest naly hehe hy exchom, ‘They ould hae reasoned that since ziven sane of bay ichavio id not show this of that an of leakage, they sould allt hom est. Thus, accuracy in judging the bomest behavior could be iat becatve of the ae: crate information avallable inthe deceptive buy behavior. ‘Let us consider the results on the judg- ments of the face, Not only were the facial Fudements less accurate than the body judg Silent the sabi of thi report, we seve vnc hi sa hve ssn gs Sie epeaePfpe SS se ee ee ee ee hae bwwea daw & ww wie wae hh ee i 296 Pave Exaan ano Watcace V. Freshy: ‘ments, but when the face was viewed, regard- less of whether a familiarity example was seen or whether the behavior was from the hhonest or deceptive session, the number of Persons whose behavior was accurately judged by more than half of the observers was no better than would be expected by chance* Despite these poor results, two additional findings suggest that the facial behavior dur- ing deception was not totally devoid of mean- ing. First, other observers more highly trained were able to judge this facial behavior accu- rately. Ekman and Friesen's theory suggested that facial behavior during deception would contain leakage in microexpressions, very brief facial movements shortened by attempts to inhibit or interrupt, but that these would ‘be missed by most observers. To check this possibility, four experienced facial analysts who had spent hundreds of hours using 2 Procedure for measuring facial movements (Facial Affect Scoring Technique, Ekinan, Friesen, & Tomkins, 1971) were shown the videotapes of the face with the familiarity example. Each of these observers accurately judged both the honest and deceptive e- havior of almost all of the nurses, suszesti that the information is theve in the face, if the viewer knows what tu look fur and. how to interpret it. Obviously, this jindine inust bbe considered as very tentative until it has been replicated with more observers sand ‘more subjects ‘The second finiiny which suxzests that uhe facial behavior urine deception was net devoid of meaning comes from correlations between how the face during deception wats judged and other aspects wf the sujects' ives Inspection of the judgment data revealed large individual diterences among the sulr- jects. Some subjects evidently were good fa cial liars, since the great majority of the “observers called them honest during the decep- tion session. Others were poor facial liars since the great majority of the observers cor- rectly judged their behavior during deception "To answer this question ia another fashion, the data were alo talied Ly observer other than iy subject, counting how many subjects ach observer sccuraely judged, rather than coualing how mans observers were accurate in julting each subject, dential results were found ‘And some subjects’ facial behavior must have been contradictory ur confusing, since the observers were about evenly divided as to whether these subjects were honest or decep- tive. These ditferences among subjects in how their facial behavior was judged. and pre- sumably in how sell they eensored and simu- lated their facial expressions, were found to be correlated with a number ef personality variables and subsequent performance mea- sures. These results will be the subject of a later report, when the findings have been replicated with other suojects to provide a larger sample. Only one correlation with sub- sequent school periormance is reported here, to illustrate that the individual differences in facial behavior during deception were not a chance phenomenon. ‘This particular result is reported because it hal Leen predicted, is straightforward, and perhaps best demon strates that behavior in the honest-deception experiment was relevant to the rest of the subjects’ lives. It was reported in the Method section that the subjects had been told vhat behavior in the honest-

    You might also like