Editing Deception (section)

== Deception detection ==
Deception detection is extremely difficult unless it is a blatant or obvious lie or contradicts something the other knows to be true. While it is difficult to deceive a person over a long period of time, deception often occurs in day-to-day conversations between relational partners.<ref name="Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2007" /> Detecting deception is difficult because there are no known completely reliable indicators of deception and because people often reply on a [[Truth-default theory|truth-default]] state. Deception, however, places a significant cognitive load on the deceiver. He or she must recall previous statements so that his or her story remains consistent and believable. As a result, deceivers often leak important information both verbally and [[non verbal communication|nonverbally]].

Deception and its detection is a complex, fluid, and cognitive process that is based on the context of the message exchange. The [[interpersonal deception theory]] posits that interpersonal deception is a dynamic, iterative process of mutual influence between a sender, who [[Manipulation (psychology)|manipulates]] information to depart from the truth, and a receiver, who attempts to establish the validity of the message.<ref>Buller & Burgoon, 1996</ref> A deceiver's actions are interrelated to the message receiver's actions. It is during this exchange that the deceiver will reveal verbal and nonverbal information about deceit.<ref>Burgoon & Qin, 2006</ref> Some research has found that there are some cues that may be correlated with deceptive communication, but scholars frequently disagree about the effectiveness of many of these cues to serve as reliable indicators.<ref>Ziano, I., & Wang, D. (2021). Slow lies: Response delays promote perceptions of insincerity. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology''. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000250</ref> A cross cultural study conducted to analyze human behavior and deception concluded detecting deception often has to do with the judgements of a person and how they interpret [[Nonverbal cues|non-verbal cues.]] One's personality can influence these judgements also as some people are more confident in deceiving compared to others.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Perusall |url=https://app.perusall.com/courses/live-online-fundamentals-of-speech-communication-aa-2023-fall-full-term-spc1017-126/choices-and-connections-an-introduction-to-communication-632896321?chapter=cb9b2c9361c23115bf2fb21b56494143 |access-date=2023-12-12 |website=app.perusall.com}}</ref> Noted deception scholar Aldert Vrij even states that there is no nonverbal behavior that is uniquely associated with deception.<ref name="Vrij, 2008">Vrij, 2008</ref> As previously stated, a specific behavioral indicator of deception does not exist. There are, however, some nonverbal behaviors that have been found to be correlated with deception. Vrij found that examining a "cluster" of these cues was a significantly more reliable indicator of deception than examining a single cue.<ref name="Vrij, 2008" />

Many people believe that they are good at deception, though this confidence is often misplaced.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Grieve | first1 = Rachel | last2 = Hayes | first2 = Jordana | date = January 1, 2013 | title = Does perceived ability to deceive = ability to deceive? Predictive validity of the perceived ability to deceive (PATD) scale | journal = Personality and Individual Differences | volume = 54| issue = 2| pages = 311–314 | doi = 10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.001| doi-access = free}}</ref> Deception detection can decrease with increased empathy.<ref name="b741"/> [[Emotion]] recognition training does not affect the ability to detect deception.<ref name="b741">{{cite journal | last1=Zloteanu | first1=Mircea | last2=Bull | first2=Peter | last3=Krumhuber | first3=Eva G | last4=Richardson | first4=Daniel C | title=Veracity judgement, not accuracy: Reconsidering the role of facial expressions, empathy, and emotion recognition training on deception detection | journal=Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume=74 | issue=5 | date=2021 | issn=1747-0218 | pmid=33234008 | pmc=8056713 | doi=10.1177/1747021820978851 | pages=910–927}}</ref> 

[[Mark G. Frank|Mark Frank]] proposes that deception is detected at the cognitive level.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Frank |first1=M. G. |last2=O'Sullivan |first2=M. |last3=Menasco |first3=M. A. |year=2009 |chapter=Human Behavior and Deception Detection |editor-first=J. G. |editor-last=Voeller |title=Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security |location=New York |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |doi=10.1002/9780470087923.hhs299 |isbn=978-0-471-76130-3 |citeseerx=10.1.1.177.9157 }}</ref> Lying requires deliberate conscious behavior, so listening to speech and watching body language are important factors in detecting lies.  If a response to a question has a lot disturbances, less talking time, repeated words, and poor logical structure, then the person may be lying. Vocal cues such as frequency height and variation may also provide meaningful clues to deceit.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rockwell |first1=P. A. |last2=Buller |first2=D. B. |last3=Burgoon |first3=J. K. |title=Measurement of deceptive voices: Comparing acoustic and perceptual data |journal=Applied Psycholinguistics |volume=18 |year=1997 |issue=4 |pages=471–484 |doi=10.1017/S0142716400010948 |s2cid=144615784 }}</ref>

Fear specifically causes heightened arousal in liars, which manifests in more frequent blinking, pupil dilation, speech disturbances, and a higher pitched voice. The liars that experience guilt have been shown to make attempts at putting distance between themselves and the deceptive communication, producing "nonimmediacy cues". These can be verbal or physical, including speaking in more indirect ways and showing an inability to maintain eye contact with their conversation partners.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zuckerman |first1=M. |last2=DePaulo |first2=B. M. |last3=Rosenthal |first3=R. |title=Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception |journal=Advances in Experimental Social Psychology |volume=14 |year=1981 |pages=1–59 |doi=10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X |isbn=978-0-12-015214-8 }}</ref> Another cue for detecting deceptive speech is the tone of the speech itself. Streeter, Krauss, Geller, Olson, and Apple (1977) have assessed that fear and anger, two emotions widely associated with deception, cause greater arousal than grief or indifference, and note that the amount of stress one feels is directly related to the frequency of the voice.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Streeter |first1=L. A. |last2=Krauss |first2=R. M. |last3=Geller |first3=V. |last4=Olson |first4=C. |last5=Apple |first5=W. |title=Pitch changes during attempted deception |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=35 |issue=5 |year=1977 |pages=345–350 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.35.5.345 |pmid=874738 }}</ref>