ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES WORKPLACE

DECEPTION DETECTION KNOWLEDGE

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

2023
Volume: 6
Pages: 703-711
Document ID: 2022PEMJ477
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7502766
Manuscript Accepted: 2023-3-1
Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Academic Employees’ Workplace Deception Detection Knowledge

Apple Grace Bonhoc*, Maico Demi Aperocho
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.

Abstract
Humans are known as fallible lie detectors, often considered inept and nescient in unmasking deceit. To
unravel the truth behind this speculation, this organizational communication study assessed the academic
employees' workplace deception (WD) detection knowledge when using Facial micro-expressions (FME),
context, verbal, vocal, and non-verbal cues. It determined the significant difference in their WD knowledge
after exposure to the treatments, investigated their ways in cognitive and psychological processing of cues
when detecting WD, and examined how their WD detection knowledge influenced their communication
behavior in the organization. Non-equivalent Control Group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was
employed for this purpose. Results indicate that both control and treatment groups were much knowledgeable
when using FME before and after exposure to Facial Micro-Expression Training (FMET). While findings
reveal no significant difference in the treatment group's WD detection knowledge after FMET, the said group
shows an increase from less to moderate knowledge after Online Deception Detection Training (OODT). The
researchers believe that much is yet to be discovered in the field of detecting deceptive communication
involving academic employees. The outbreak of the Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) in the Philippines
might have caused disruptions and disadvantages, but these limitations may be turned into a light that brings
in fresh perspectives. Hence, it is recommended that more studies in deception detection be conducted in the
Philippines.

Keywords: organizational communication, workplace deception detection, academic employees,

facial micro-expressions, employee communication behavior.

Introduction within educational environments to detect lies

W o r k p l a c e d e c e p t i o n ( WD) is an act of
communicating a false message(s) to a coworker (e.g.,
superior, subordinate, peer) to achieve personal over
organizational goals. It breaks trust and wanes
workplace relationships. If left undetected or
unaddressed, it will not take long until it creates a
community filled with cynicism and contempt. WD
leads to highly stressful interactions, often more
stressful than actual job requirements (Waldron, 2000,
cited by Bryant and Sias, 2011). It also catalyzes a
toxic work environment and blocks potential
workforce collaboration. It is deemed illegal and
hinders profitability (Lee & Mckenzie, 1995 as cited in
Bryant and Sias, 2011). WD, as a form of
organizational conflict, may be present in
conversations and discourses of employees and may
eventually result in the breakdown of organizational
communication (Miller, 2015). With the string of lies
and strained workplace relationships, building a
learning organization will be impossible (Senge,
2004).
For the past years, the field of deception detection
research has attracted p sy cho log ists and
communication scholars alike. While many of them
focused on deception in general human interactions
(Nortje & Tredoux, 2019; Stel et al., 2020; Izotovas et
al., 2020), few have approached the issue in academic
workplaces and have investigated the ability of people
Bonhoc & Aperocho
(Aamodt & Custer, 2006; Vrij et al., 2006). Little is
known about academic employees' cognitive and
psychological ways of processing cues to detect WD.
Limited research is also available today on how WD
detection knowledge influences the academic
employees' communication behavior in their
organization.
Out of this very minimal study, some researchers
claim that teachers rely on stereotypical beliefs or
invalid deception cues and have a stronger truth bias
which hinder them from having accurate detection
(Marksteiner et al., 2011, Ulatowska, 2017). Their bias
likely stems from their expectation of being honest
social interactants and the demands ascribed to their
profession.
In the Philippines, teachers must adhere to its code of
ethics (e.g., Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Ethics
for Professional Teachers: “Teacher shall, at all times,
be imbued with the spirit of professional loyalty,
mutual confidence, and faith in one another, self-
sacrifice for the common good, and full cooperation
with colleagues.”) The standards, mandates, directives,
and missions given to teachers may greatly influence
their beliefs and biases on deception detection. To our
knowledge, the Filipino teachers’ beliefs about
deception cues are still unknown as of this writing,
making it imperative to have academic employees as
the population for this study. Although this research is
703/711
Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

limited to academic employees from one institution

and only concentrated on their WD detection
knowledge and its influence on their communication
behavior in the organization, this may still serve as a Methodology
good study context and starting point for deception
detection research in the Philippines.
Research Design
More than addressing the shortage of deception
detection studies in the academic domain and the The researchers used a quantitative approach,
Philippines, this study was conducted with academic specifically a non-equivalent control group pretest-
employees as the respondents because their profession posttest quasi-experimental design. Two groups were
exposes them to varied deceptive interactions such as formed and named Section Undercover or Treatment
Group and Section Sherlock or Control Group. Both
lies committed by students (Ulatowska, 2016). The
groups took the Workplace Deception Detection
biennial report prepared by Josephson Institute of
Knowledge Test (WDDKT), Facial Micro-Expressions
Ethics (JIoE, 2012) shows that 55 percent of the
Assessment (FMEA) pretest, and posttest, but only
students had lied to a teacher about something.
Section Undercover underwent the 5-day online
Similarly, Nemenzo’s (2018) study shows that in a
training. For Online Training Day (OTD) 1, the topics
particular Philippine-based school, teachers highly
were Introduction to Deception Detection, and
problematize students who lie to them. Falsification
Introduction to Workplace Deception (WD) Detection
and concealment are the students’ common methods of
while OTD 2 was about WD Detection through verbal
deception as they make excuses for late work and cues, and OTD 3 for WD Detection through vocal
attendance issues (Griffin et al., 2015). Alarmingly, cues. OTD 4 focused on WD Detection through non-
several students, except first years, perceived their verbal cues, and finally, OTD 5 was about WD
professors as less honest (Tamayo, 2014). This finding Detection through Facial Micro Expressions Training.
may apparently suggest that workplace deception
indeed exists in academic institutions. Table 1. Diagramming Notation, Application of Non-
equivalent Control Group pretest-posttest Quasi-
To help address these concerns, Driskell (2012), as Experimental Design
cited by Ulatowska (2016), emphasized the importance
of increasing teachers’ ability to detect deceit through
professional training. Ability and knowledge in
detecting deception is germane in uncovering the true
intention, motivation, and emotions of students and co-
academic employees. Given these contexts, the
researchers were prompted to conduct this quantitative
investigation as a steppingstone for further research
that will recommend an appropriate training for
workplace deception detection.

For the purpose of this study, the researchers sought

answers to the following: (1) What is the level of the
academic employees’ Workplace Deception (WD)
detection knowledge when using the following cues Respondents of the Study
before the quasi-experiment: (a) facial micro-
expressions; and (b) context, verbal, vocal, and non- The respondents of this study were administrators,
verbal cues?; and (2) Is there a significant difference in faculty and non-teaching personnel from a junior high
the level of the treatment group’s WD detection school in Davao City. To ensure the equal distribution
knowledge after the conduct of the quasi-experiment of subjects in the Treatment and Control Group, four
and exposure to the treatments? Generally, this study (4) subjects must be deducted from the categories with
assessed the academic employees’ level of knowledge odd numbers (e.g. Faculty and AA/NTP), making 116
in using communication cues (e.g., facial micro- total number of respondents with 58 males and 58
expressions, context, verbal, vocal, and non-verbal
cues) to detect WD before the quasi-experiment and
after the treatment group’s exposure to the treatments.

Bonhoc & Aperocho 704/711

Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
females. However, because of the subjects’ tight
schedule and heavy workloads caused by the transition
from traditional to online teaching, there was a very
slow response from the targeted subjects. To make it
easier for them and to expedite the process, they were
asked to fill-out an online informed consent form.
Despite several follow-ups and requests, only few had
expressed their willingness to participate in the study.
The tabular presentation below shows the total number
of academic employees who accomplished the
Informed Consent Form (ICF) and actually
participated in the study. The study’s subjects also
satisfied the selection criteria: to have at least one (1)
year of work experience/length of service in the
selected locale to qualify for this study and they are
natural-born Filipino citizens to observe better how
Filipinos conceal facial micro-expressions and detect
WD through it.
Table 2. Actual distribution for the pretest-posttest
Quasi-Experimental Design
Sampling Procedure
This study employed two random sampling
procedures, namely stratified random sampling, and
convenience sampling. The researchers divided the
population (academic employees with signed ICF) into
strata based on their shared characteristics such as age
and length of service. The codes for each stratum were
A1Y1, A1Y2, A2Y1, A2Y2. The samples were then
taken from each coded stratum and distributed to the
control and treatment groups. Later in the middle of
the study, the volunteer subjects encountered varied
personal and work-related concerns due to the
struggles of online teaching and stress caused by the
pandemic. Consequently, some of them were only able
to take the pre-test and unable to continue the rest of
the assessments. This scenario prompted the
researchers to pursue convenience sampling: those
who were only willing and available participated in the
study.
Bonhoc & Aperocho
Research Instruments
There were two (2) research instruments in this study.
These were the Workplace Deception Detection
Knowledge Test (WDDKT) and the Facial Micro-
Expression Assessment (FMEA) or the Pretest-
Posttest. The treatment group was also exposed to a
treatment, the Facial micro-expressions Training
(FMET). The Workplace Deception Detection
Knowledge Test (WDDKT) was a 40-item validated
multiple-choice test. The questions from items 1-20
were mostly about vocal cues to deception and
deceptive statements, while 21-40 were generally
about WD situations performed by/towards a superior,
subordinate, or peer. Items 30, 32, 33, and 35 were
with digital illustrations to help visualize the facial
micro-expressions. The rubric and interpretation guide
in assessing the respondents’ WD detection knowledge
level can be found below.
Table 3. Rubric for the Workplace Deception
Detection Knowledge Test (WDDKT)
The Facial Micro Expression Assessment (FMEA) was
the second research instrument for this study. This was
based on the Micro-Expressions Assessment and
Training of the Paul Ekman Group (PEG). With the
permission of the instruments’ proponent, the
researchers made their version of the FMEA for the
pretest and posttest using storyboards. The storyboards
in digital sketch and smudge paint forms showed the
faces of the talents and labels that described the
specific facial movement present for a particular
emotion. For example, to reveal the surprise facial
expression, the eyebrows must be raised but not drawn
together, eyes are widened, and the jaw dropped down.
705/711
Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
The videos, as stimuli, have three frames, each with 1
second total running time. The first frame showed the
neutral or blank facial expression characterized by the
lack of emotion; the second frame depicted a particular
emotion's facial micro-expression and was
immediately concealed and morphed to the neutral or
blank facial expression. The subjects were asked to
identify the suppressed emotion in the video by
observing the facial micro-expression. Moreover, the
FMEA contained the baseline facial micro-expression
video and two videos for each universal emotion (e.g.,
happy, anger, sad, fear, disgust, contempt, surprise),
thus producing 14 videos/items in the first part. The
second part of the FMEA required the subjects to
watch a YouTube video clip found in this link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaB7wr27gag&t=
1s from GMA News' which was published last 4 May
2020 with the caption "24 Oras: Woman evicted from
rented home, claims barangay officials threaten to take
her baby." The subjects viewed the video clip from
4:13 to 5:04 and after that, identified whether the
accused is lying based on facial micro-expressions.
The third and last part showed the interview with a
Filipina government worker. The interview questions
were work-related and contextualized to the current
pandemic scenarios. The subjects were asked to
identify her emotions using facial micro-expressions as
cues. There is a total of 19 items for FMEA. The table
below contains the rubric and interpretation guide for
the Facial Micro-Expressions Assessment.
Table 4. Rubric for the Facial Micro-Expressions
Assessment (FMEA)
Bonhoc & Aperocho
Results and Discussion
This organizational communication study assessed the
academic employees' knowledge in detecting
Workplace Deception (WD) before the quasi-
experiment and after their exposure to the treatments
such as Facial Micro-Expressions Training (FMET)
and Online Deception Detection Training (ODDT).
This research also tested two null hypotheses. It was
postulated that there was no difference in the level of
the treatment group's WD detection knowledge in
using facial micro-expressions as cues after having
experienced FMET. It was also speculated that if the
treatment group underwent the ODDT, there would
still be no difference in their level of WD detection
knowledge using context verbal, vocal, and non-verbal
cues. To evaluate the academic employees' WD
detection knowledge, the control group and treatment
group took the 19-item Facial Micro-Expression
Assessment (FMEA) and 40-item Workplace
Deception Detection Knowledge Test (WDDKT).
Level of the Academic Employees’ WD Detection
Knowledge when Using Facial Micro-Expressions as
Cues before the Quasi-Experiment
Frequency, percentage counts, weighted mean, and t-
test were used to test the hypotheses. The result on the
level of academic employees’ Workplace Deception
detection knowledge when using facial micro-
expressions before the quasi-experiment was reflected
in Table 5. The table consists of five columns. The
first column contained the descriptive level and range
of scores from 0-4 points (less knowledgeable) to 15-
19 points (very much knowledgeable). The second and
third column contained the data for the control group,
while the fourth and fifth columns were for the
treatment group. The mean was indicated at the bottom
part of the table.
706/711
Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Table 5. Level of academic employees’ Workplace
Deception (WD) detection knowledge when using
facial micro expressions before the quasi- experiment
Table 5 shows that in the pre-test, the 27 respondents
under the control group have a mean score of 10,
which implied that based on FMEA and this study's
rubric, they were much knowledgeable in detecting
WD using facial micro-expressions as cues. The
treatment group with 20 respondents also fell on the
same level with 12 as the cohort's mean score, two
points higher than the control group's mean. In this
study, the level "Much knowledgeable" suggested that
the respondents from both groups know how to detect
concealed emotions by spotting the person's facial
expression leakage.
Level of the Academic Employees’ WD Detection
Knowledge when Using Context, Verbal, Vocal,
and Non-verbal Cues before the Quasi-Experiment
Aside from measuring the respondents’ WD detection
knowledge using FME, their knowledge when using
context, vocal, and non-verbal cues as means of
deception detection was also examined using the
Workplace Deception Detection Knowledge Test
(WDDKT). The same statistical tools were utilized to
analyze their scores, and the results are displayed in
Table 6.
Table 6. Level of academic employees’ Workplace
Deception (WD) detection knowledge when using
vocal, verbal and non-verbal cues before the quasi-
experiment
Bonhoc & Aperocho
The statistical analysis outcome showed that in the
pre-test, the control group has a mean score of 13. The
treatment group also took the same WDDKT prior to
undergoing the Online Deception Detection Training
(ODDT) and they got a mean score of 12. This
indicated that both groups fell under the “Less
Knowledgeable” level during the pre-test. In this
study's rubric, the score fell under the "Less
Knowledgeable" level. This also implied that the
respondents had prior context-relevant WD detection
knowledge, but it was not in-depth. It also suggested that
although they were assumed to be familiar with the
o rg a n i z a t io n 's con text and their co-
workers/conversation partners, their misconceptions
about detecting deception hinder them from
uncovering the truth.
Overall, the results revealed that the respondents were
“Much Knowledgeable” in using FME as cues to
detect deception before the experiment and the
treatments. They had, however, recognized the
difficulty in spotting the specific leakages and facial
muscle movement. Their determination of emotions
using FME cues was often done unknowingly,
unconsciously, or through peripheral routes. On the
other hand, their WDDKT results show that they are
under the “Less Knowledgeable” level when using
context, verbal, vocal, and non-verbal cues in detecting
deception. From their narratives, it can be inferred that
their low mean scores may be attributed to
misconceptions, lack of experience in using cues, low
motivation to detect deception, and partial analysis of
manipulated information.
Significant Difference in the Level of Treatment
Group’s WD Detection Knowledge when Using
FME after the Conduct of the Quasi-Experiment
and Exposure to FMET
The Treatment Group was exposed to Facial Micro-
Expression Training (FMET), one of the treatments in
this study. The training and the stimulus video
materials that it contained were inspired by Paul
Ekman Group’s Micro-Expressions Training Tool
(METT). Jordan et al. (2019) critiqued that METT was
not effective in increasing their respondents’ deception
detection accuracy. Previous research also suggested
that frequent training did not lead to better deception
detection (Kassin & Fong, 1999). However, more
recent studies took an optimistic stance that training
enhances the participants' accuracy in interpreting
behaviors through facial micro-expressions
(Matsumoto & Hwang, Hyi Sung (2011) Crews et al.,
2007; Reinhard et al., 2011). Given these pieces of
literature, the researchers hypothesized that after the
treatment group underwent the FMET, there will be no
707/711
Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
significant difference in the group’s WD detection
knowledge level when using FME as cues to detect
deception. This null hypothesis was tested, and its
results are displayed in Table 7.
Table 7. Significant difference in the level of treatment
group’s WD Detection knowledge after the conduct of
the quasi-experiment when using Facial Micro
Expressions (FME)
As shown in Table 7, there was no remarkable
difference between the pretest and posttest mean
scores of the treatment group respondents despite the
one-point increase. Clearly, this improvement was not
statistically significant because the p-value is higher
than .05 (p-value = .110 > .05). The results indicate
that the Facial Micro-Expression Training (FMET) has
little or no effect on the respondents’ level of WD
detection knowledge when using facial micro-
expressions as cues to detect deception. Their score
remained in “Much Knowledgeable” level failing to
reach the “Very Much Knowledgeable” level. The
hypothesis was, therefore, supported by the findings.
It appeared that the result of the hypothesis testing was
also consistent with the findings and literature from the
study of Jordan et al. (2019), as the training/treatment
did not enhance the Facial micro-expressions
Assessment (FMEA) scores of the respondents. The
outcome of this testing also prompted the re-
examination of the variables contained in the
conceptual framework. It led to the cognizance that
although the dependent variable (WD detection
knowledge) was rationally related to the independent
variable (training/treatment), the statistical value
shows that the magnitude of difference caused by the
independ en t variable and observed in the
sample/treatment group was weak and insignificant.
Thus, if exceeding the treatment group’s pre-test
FMEA scores and eventually reaching “Very Much
Knowledgeable” level in the post test was the indicator
of the FMET/treatment’s effectiveness, then the result
reveals that FMET was unable to satisfy that
requirement. This showed that FMET would also be
more likely ineffective in the population of academic
employees. In addition, the statistical difference
generated through the sample/subjects could not also
be made as a basis for making an inference of FMET’s
effectiveness towards the population.
Bonhoc & Aperocho
The outcome of the testing also prompted not to reject
the null hypothesis, instead to reserve judgment
considering that there was insufficient evidence and
limited sample to conclude that FMET could increase
the WD detection knowledge of academic employees
when using facial micro-expressions. Their WD
detection knowledge level may not have differed
significantly because they opted for the peripheral
route when decoding facial expressions. Their
exposure to the treatment (FMET) and the stimulus
materials (e.g., training videos) might not have created
an impact as they were unable to thoroughly scrutinize
the facial muscles' movement that hides the talent's
real emotion in the video. It is also possible to infer
that the respondents were unable to raise their
performance to the “Very Much Knowledgeable” level
as they were used to clustering the facial micro-
expressions with other cues (e.g., context) and
maximizing the baseline information during actual
conversations.
Lastly, the treatment group was asynchronously
exposed to the treatments for two months. The time
they had identified and spent may not be sufficient for
FMET to elicit a significant difference. The
respondents' experiences during the surge of
COVID-19 in Davao City, Philippines, might have
also affected the efficacy of their asynchronous online
training and the respondents' engagement towards it.
Taken together, the result suggests us that after having
been exposed to the treatment (FMET), the treatment
group’s mean scores did not differ significantly; and
the treatment had not caused a notable difference. It
was argued that their current level of WD knowledge
when using FME cues was retained because, in their
prior experiences, they used to cluster it with other
cues and did not use it as a sole basis for deception
detection. It was also revealed that while they claim to
be attentive, their observation of the micro-expression
appears to be done inadvertently. As such, they could
not specify the facial muscle movement that may point
out the leakage of the hidden emotion. The time that
the respondents allocated for the asynchronous online
training and the COVID-19 situation in the city might
have also indirectly affected their engagement and
receptiveness towards the FMET.
Significant Difference in the Level of Treatment
Group’s WD Detection Knowledge when Using
Context, Verbal, Vocal, and Non-verbal Cues after
the Conduct of the Quasi-Experiment and
Exposure to ODDT
In this research, the treatment group's pretest and
708/711
Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
posttest mean scores for the Workplace Deception
Detection Knowledge Test (WDDKT) were compared.
This was done to ascertain the likelihood that the
treatment or that the Online Deception Detection
Training (ODDT) could cause a difference and
effectively increase the treatment group's WD
detection knowledge when using context, verbal,
vocal, and non-verbal cues.
Considering the previously mentioned contrasting
literature about the effectiveness of training to enhance
deception detection accuracy, the researchers decided
to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference
in the treatment group's WD detection knowledge level
after undergoing the treatment or ODDT. The result of
the hypothesis testing is presented in Table 8.
Table 8. Significant difference in the level of treatment
group’s WD Detection knowledge after the conduct of
the quasi-experiment when using vocal, verbal, and
non-verbal cues
It can be gleaned from Table 8 that after the treatment
group’s exposure to the treatment/Online Deception
Detection Training (ODDT), the group gained a
statistically significant increase in their performance,
from their pretest mean score of 12 to a posttest mean
score of 18, as supported by a p-value lower than .05
(p-value = .000 < .05).
This implied that the treatment group’s (N = 20) WD
detection knowledge level had increased from “Less
Knowledgeable” to “Moderately Knowledgeable”
unlike the control group (N = 27), who did not
undergo the training.
This also conveyed that the treatment or ODDT may
have enhanced the respondents’ context-relevant WD
detection knowledge and caused their mean scores to
improve from 12 to 18. Opposite to the FMET, which
was inspired by METT, the ODDT was created by this
study’s researcher based on Paul Ekman Group,
Goman (2013), Vrij (2008), and Rolls (2011)). Thus,
there was no available published literature that concurs
or refutes its effectiveness. It can only be deduced that
there was a possible existing relationship between the
dependent variable (WD detection knowledge) and
ODDT (independent variable). The statistical
difference also indicated the likelihood that the said
Bonhoc & Aperocho
treatment may have caused the increase in the
treatment group’s WD detection knowledge level.
Given the positive result and rise in the treatment
group's WD detection knowledge, this study rejected
the null hypothesis. The findings showed a difference
in the academic employees' WD detection knowledge
after exposure to the treatment or ODDT.
In essence, this quasi-experimental study was
conducted using the 19-item Facial Micro-Expressions
Assessment (FMEA) and the 40-item Workplace
Deception Detection Knowledge Test (WDDKT). It
also exposed the treatment group to the treatments
(e.g., Facial Micro-Expression Training (FMET) and
Online Deception Detection Training (ODDT). The
quasi-experiment was done to ascertain a significant
difference in the level of the treatment group’s WD
detection knowledge when using facial micro-
expressions (FME) and context, verbal, vocal, and
non-verbal cues after their exposure to the treatments.
The results revealed no significant difference in the
treatment group's WD detection knowledge level when
using FME after their exposure to Facial Micro-
Expression Training (FMET). It remained in the
"Much Knowledgeable" level and was unable to
increase. In a way, this finding supported Jordan et al.
(2019) that the micro-expressions training tool
(METT) from the Paul Ekman Group (PEG), the basis
of Facial Micro-Expression Training (FMET), was
ineffective as it was unable to enhance the
participants’ performance. It also showed that
participants often cluster the FME with e.g., context,
non-verbal cues, and maximize the baseline
information when detecting deception during actual
conversations.
Moreover, the treatment group’s WD detection
knowledge when using context, verbal, vocal, and non-
verbal cues improved after the Online Deception
Detection Training (ODDT). The result showed a
significant difference given the increase of their level
from the “Less Knowledgeable” to “Moderately
Knowledgeable” level. The participants confirmed that
the ODDT influenced them to be more conscious and
aware of communicative cues to deception. Given this
finding, the hypothesis was, therefore, rejected.
Conclusion
This researchers believe that much is yet to be
discovered in the field of detecting deceptive
communication involving academic employees. The
709/711
Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
outbreak of the Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19)
in the Philippines might have caused disruptions and
disadvantages, but these limitations may be turned into
a light that brings in fresh perspectives.
To this study’s locale, the academic employees may be
given online training on Facial Micro-Expressions
using FMET, OODT, and another material that
captures online interaction dynamics. Considering that
the new normal necessitates adjustments for having a
lean medium of communication, it is best if they are
trained to be mindful and conscious in decoding FME
and other communicative cues in an online setting.
The knowledge and skill that they can gain from it
may help them detect possible WD, at the same time,
interpret their colleagues’ thoughts, motivations, and
emotions. In effect, this may stimulate good
conversations, nurture friendship and work
relationships.
Interesting future research may also stem from the
limitations encountered in the making of this study.
Considering the “new normal” of organizations,
res earch t ack l in g ac ad em i c em p lo y ee s’
communication style, organization’s communication
flow of direction in a virtual setting, academic
employees’ work-from-home positive and negative
communication behavior (e.g., virtual workplace
deception) may also be explored.
This present study may also be further extended in
many ways by communication scholars and other
interested researchers. Because this was conducted
during the Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19)
outbreak in the Philippines, the researchers adjusted
the methodologies to observe social distancing
restrictions and safety protocols. Consequently, the
limitations adversely affected the researchers’ capacity
to gather data from different locations and a larger
population. The data for this study were collected in
one academic institution only. This sampling
drawback may limit the ability to generalize the results
to the larger population. Additional data taken from
the same population and several other populations
would be helpful to corroborate the findings.
This study employed Facial Micro-Expression
Assessment (FMEA) and Facial Micro-Expression
Tool (FMET) to test and train the respondents. The
academic employees had a chance to spot the leakages
and determine the real emotion through the model’s
facial expression as depicted in the video. Although
this was logical and plausible, it would be interesting
to examine and craft an assessment that evokes
communication, participants’ emotion, and motivation
Bonhoc & Aperocho
and that captures online interaction dynamics. This
may be done to ascertain if there is an improvement in
the receivers’ attentiveness, ability to adjust
communication strategies, recognition of facial
expressions, and generation of meaning through
feedback when there are more available contexts and
information that are also typically present in real-life
deceptive episodes.
Researchers who want to conduct a deception
detection study in the Philippines may delve deeper
into Filipinos’ verbal communication, expressions, and
linguistic markers of deception behavior. This study
may enable communicators to effectively decode
deceptive messages and protect themselves from being
lied to.
References
Aamodt, M. & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A
meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232424344_Who_can_bes
t _ c a t c h _ a _ l i a r _ A _ m e t a -
analysis_of_individual_differences_in_detecting_deception
Bryant, E. & Sias, P. (2011). Sensemaking and relational
consequences of peer coworker deception. Communication
monographs, 1,
115-137.https://www.academia.edu/18024001/Sensemaking_and_R
elational_Consequences_of_Peer_Coworker_Deception
Driskell, J. E. (2012). Effectiveness of deception detection training:
A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 18, 713–731.
Ekman, P. (1970). Universal facial expressions of emotion.
California Mental Health Research Digest, 8(4), 151-158.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-06605-001%20Ekman,%20P.%
20(1985).%20Telling%20lies,%20clues%20to%20deceit%20in%20t
he marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton
Ekman, P. (1992). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace,
politics and marriage.
http://communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/telling_lies_clues_t
o_deceit_in_the_marketplace_politics_and_marriage.pdf
Ekman, P. (2006). Darwin, deception, and facial expression. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences,1000(1), 205-221. doi:
10.1196/annals.1280.010
Ekman, P. & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? The
American Psychological Association, 46(9), 913-920.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4387/dcd6339f9f070ea9915f5b62a0
5c77ebd5a8.pdf
Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M. & Frank, M. (1999). A few can catch a
liar. The American Psychological Association, Inc. Vol. 10, No.(3),
https://www.paulekman.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/A-Few-Ca
n-Catch-A-Liar.pdf
Griffin, D. J., San Bolkan, & Goodboy, A. K. (2015). Academic
dishonesty beyond cheating and plagiarism: Students’ interpersonal
deception in the college classroom. ResearchGate; Taylor & Francis
710/711
Psych Educ,2023, 6: 703-711, Document ID: PEMJ477, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7502766, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
(Routledge).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283793358_Academic_Di
shonesty_Beyond_Cheating_and_Plagiarism_Students%E2%80%99
_Interpersonal_Deception_in_the_College_Classroom
Goman, C. (2013). The truth about lies in the workplace. Berret-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-
9020.2010.00344.x
Izotovas, A., Vrij, A., Hope, L., Strömwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A.,
& Mann, S. (2020). Deception detection in repeated interviews: The
effects of immediate type of questioning on the delayed accounts.
Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 17(3),
224–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1561
Jordan, S., Brimbal, L., Wallace, D. B., Kassin, S. M., Hartwig, M.,
& Street, C. N. H. (2019). A test of the micro‐expressions training
tool: Does it improve lie detection? Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling, 16(3), 222–235.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1532
Josephson Institute of Ethics. (2012). Report card on American
youth. http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/reportcard
Miller, K. (2015) Organizational communication: Approaches and
processes. Arizona State University: Cengage Learning
Nemenzo, N. B. (2018, April 20). Problems encountered by teachers
in the teaching-learning process: A basis of an action plan.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324606765_Problems_Enc
ountered_by_Teachers_in_the_TeachingLearning_Process_A_Basis
_of_an_Action_Plan
Nortje, A. & Tredoux, C. (2019). How good are we at detecting
Bonhoc & Aperocho
deception? A review of current techniques and theories. South
Afri c a n Jou rn al of P s y c h ol o g y , 49 (4 ), 49 1– 504 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246318822953
R o l l s , D. ( 2 0 1 1 ) H o w t o s p o t a
liar.https://www.slideshare.net/danrolls1/how-to-spot-a-liar
Stel, M., Schwarz, A., Dijk, E., Knippenberg, A. (2020) The limits
of conscious deception detection: When reliance on false deception
cues contributes to inaccurate judgments.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01331/full
Tamayo, A. (2014). Virtues of honesty in a higher education
institution. American Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1),1-6.
Ulatowska, J. (2017) Teachers’ beliefs about cues to deception and
the ability to detect deceit. Educational Psychology.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308051468_Teachers'_beli
efs_about_cues_to_deception_and_the_ability_to_detect_deceit
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Apple Grace L. Bonhoc, DComm
• Ateneo De Davao University, Philippines
• University of the Philippines Open University
(UPOU)
Maico Demi B. Aperocho, Ph.D.
• College of Arts and Sciences Education University
of Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines
• Department of Modern Language and Literature
Gonzaga University Spokane, WA, USA
711/711