Motivation impairment effect

Last updated

Motivation impairment effect (MIE) [1] is a hypothesised behavioral effect relating to the communication of deception. The MIE posits that people who are highly motivated to deceive are less successful in their goal (compared to those who are less motivated) when their speech and mannerisms are observed by the intended audience. This is because their nonverbal cues, such as adaptor gestures, sweating, kinesic behaviors, verbal disfluencies, etc, tend to be more pronounced due to increased stress, cognitive load, and heightened emotional state. [1] There is some disagreement regarding the MIE hypothesis, with a few nonverbal communication scholars arguing that deception should not be examined as separate for senders and receivers, but rather as an integral part of the overall process. [2]

Contents

Hypothesis

The MIE hypothesis associated with deceptive communication predicts that relative to those who are less motivated, those who are more highly motivated to get away with their deception may be better at the verbal aspects of their deception, but comparatively less successful when others can observe their nonverbal behaviors. [3] Thus, lies told by motivated liars should be more readily detected than lies told by unmotivated liars, as Iong as the judges of the lie can see or hear the speakers' nonverbal and verbal cues. [3] Therefore, a negative association is predicted between motivation and deception performance, but only when the observer has direct access to the deceiver's nonverbal cues.

When only verbal channels are accessible, predictions are that performance is improved by motivation. The motivation impairment effect is founded on basis that deception is associated with heightened mental, emotional, and cognitive responses caused by emotions of fear of being discovered, guilt, and feeling uncomfortable. [4]

Alternative hypothesis

Interpersonal deception theory (Burgoon et al, 1995 [5] [6] ) has more recently generated research challenging DePaulo & Kirkendol's motivation impairment effect hypothesis. [3] Offering a set of alternative predictions derived from interpersonal deception theory, Burgoon et al. suggest increased motivation can often enhance both verbal and nonverbal performance irrespective of whether individuals are telling the truth or engaging in deception. [2] In the early stages of her work on interpersonal deception, Burgoon stated that researchers should view deception as a "chain of offensive and defensive maneuvers on the part of both participants". [7] Deception should not be examined as separate for senders and receivers, but rather as an integral part of the overall process. The deception game isn't balanced, however. Deceivers always know the name of the game, and they usually have more to lose if they fail. With this heightened motivation, deceivers are more successful at sensing suspicion than respondents are at spotting deception. [8]

Non-verbal leakage

Nonverbal behavior is primarily automatic, reactive, and often unintentional. When communicators attempt to hide or control their arousal, they might expose themselves to nonverbal leakage, by unintentionally communicating nonverbally that they might be attempting to deceive. There can be no question that certain types of nonverbal leakage often occur outside conscious control. [2] The more motivated a deceiver is, the harder they will try, compared to less motivated deceivers, to mask or control their behavior in order to perform the deception believably. According to the motivation impairment effect hypothesis, however, the increased arousal and behavioral control associated with such efforts actually impairs deceptive success rather than enhances it as a consequence of increased nonverbal leakage. The harder deceivers try to create convincing lies, the more likely they are to arouse suspicion and, hence, fail at their efforts. [2]

Non verbal leakage can be observed in similar situations that involve verbal and non-verbal cues associated with the particular emotions that a liar attempts to hide. A good example is when an individual attempts to act like they like someone. Observers may tend to assume that the person likes the other person due to the faked affect. [9] Nevertheless, if the observers are keen to assess how the individual pretending to like the other person actually behaves when they are around people they love, one would observe significant differences. [10] They may observe that the individuals show more liking for people they like than those they pretend to like.

When an individual has an increased desire to deceive another individual, they attempt to regulate behaviors that express their feelings. Nevertheless, they only succeed in controlling the ones that can be regulated, such as verbal cues. [10] They may fail to control their non-verbal cues since they occur involuntarily. The more an individual attempts to conceal the truth to prevent others from discovering it, the easier it becomes to see through their lies. [10] However, this does not only reflect performance impairment, it also may show both inhibition and improvement. [9]

Deception categories

Instrumental: To avoid punishment or to protect resources. Instrumental deception occurs commonly in court when speakers intentionally lying under oath in an attempt to have their sentencing shortened, get off a case, or get off completely free. It is deeply important to understand the non-verbal cues that come with deceptive communication so that innocent people are not wrongly convicted or so deceptive individuals can manipulate others or the law. It has been widely documented across the United States that individuals instrumentally deceiving those in court have gotten innocent people convicted, or exonerated guilty individuals. [11] Individuals who are instrumentally motivated will experience higher levels of detection apprehensiveness when motivated by self-interest rather than goals for relationships or identity. [12]

Relational: To maintain relationships or bonds. Relational deception occurs often in personal and professional situations, whether that be personal or professional lying or political deceit. The main goal of Relational deception is to preserve a relationship or bond with an individual through false claims or deceptive behavior. [12]

Identity: To preserve "face" or the self-image. [13] Often times identity-motivated individuals use deception as a show of competence or to provide prospects for success in their chosen careers. In self-presenting, individuals behave in ways that convey certain roles and personal qualities to others. [12] In most instances, deceptive self-presenters are found less conceiving and more noticeable than truthful presentations. Secondly, these actions will come off more deliberately when their performative actions are deceitful rather than truthful. [12]

Three main components of deception: The original deceptive message, additional messages intended to increase the believability of the central message, and unintentional behaviors that possibly give away the deception. [8]

Signs indicating deception

The left eye is what normal pupils look like, and the right is dilated. Dilated Pupils (cropped).jpg
The left eye is what normal pupils look like, and the right is dilated.

Nonverbal cues are considered to be like involuntary responses, such as tongue slips which are hard to control. It may be more challenging for a liar to control their non-verbal cues when deceiving another individual. This can be attributed to various reasons, including the connection between a person's feelings and non-verbal cues, which do not exist for verbal cues. [14]

Individual avoids direct eye contact due to feelings of discomfort Gaze avoidance.png
Individual avoids direct eye contact due to feelings of discomfort
An individual attempting to deceive another may fidget with their hands due to feeling uncomfortable or nervous about their deception. Hand fidgeting.jpg
An individual attempting to deceive another may fidget with their hands due to feeling uncomfortable or nervous about their deception.

Sex differences

"When speakers were talking to members of the opposite sex, their lies were--as predicted--more readily detected from channels that included nonverbal cues than when they were talking to members of the same sex, and presumably were less highly motivated to get away with their lies". [3] "When speakers were talking to attractive listeners, and presumably were more highly motivated to succeed in their lies than when talking to unattractive listeners, they appeared to the judges to be more insincere, both when lying and telling the truth. Lies told by women were more readily detected from the channels that included visual nonverbal cues than were the lies told by men." [3]

Real world situations

Sweating is a common response to fear or stress, which is why an individual intentionally deceiving another could notice increased physical symptoms of anxiety. Nervous sweating.jpg
Sweating is a common response to fear or stress, which is why an individual intentionally deceiving another could notice increased physical symptoms of anxiety.

Law enforcement has had help from researchers in developing new strategies for detecting deception/lying. They look for the obvious nonverbal and verbal signs indicating deception, but that is not enough sometimes. It was found that there are "culture specific differences in tone of voice and vocal characteristics." [16] Authorities and researchers have conducted more through interview investigations. Furthermore, if individuals who are highly motivated to deceive others may use their motivation to their advantage through channeling most of their mental energy to creating a convincing story, their heightened desire may fail due to non-verbal cues which they may not recognize and are unable to control. [17] This is giving authorities the upper hand, they are making the interviews more complex, for example, by making them tell their stories in reverse rather than chronological. The word count and what word is being used also is analyzed. "If a liar plans what they are going to say, then they are going to have a larger quantity of words," [16] when giving their fabricated story or testimony. Also, it is examined how someone trying to lie will use more single-syllable words and repeat certain words, as well as words that convey uncertainty; "might" rather than "will". [16] Lie detectors also can be used to convey certainty of who is lying and who is telling the truth. In order to succeed in deception, liars are required to repress their verbal and non-verbal cues to conceal the fact that they are lying. Expert liars are individuals who appear to be truthful even when they lie. They even look sincere when they are lying and also when they are not lying. [4] Many individuals look sincere when in fact, they are lying. People also fabricate the truth and even talk their way around a lie to lower cognitive load, thus limiting nonverbal or verbal cues that show deception. Nevertheless, if a keen observer contrasts when an individual is lying and when they are telling the truth, they can easily observe variations. [18]

Polygraph test Administration of Polygraph.jpg
Polygraph test

Polygraph test or a lie detector test looks deeper than just the verbal and nonverbal cues that someone is lying and also talking through actions or stories to see if it matches the true story. Poly graphs look at "the body's reactions to stress such as elevated heart rate, blood pressure, faster breathing". [19]

Across cultures

Individualist: Stresses self-assertion and promotion, as well as competition. Individualistic cultures accept small lies to avoid hurt, and self-aggrandizement is an accepted part of personality. Individualists are more likely to accept lies that are self-serving. People in individualistic cultures developed different, more absolute systems of moral judgment than commonly found in collectivist cultures, which creates a different dynamics for evaluating deception. [8]

Collectivist: Individuals will behave in ways that are expected of them by others, rather than directly for their personal benefit, creating a greater focus on upholding the social rule and avoiding disruptive conflicts, even if it means deceiving to avoid such disturbances. Collectivists tend to be more accepting of lies that support the social-good. [8]

Zhou and Lutterbie (2005) found that, in general, Chinese rated deception as more acceptable than Americans, although the acceptance of specific types of deception depended on the culture. For example, in interacting with a stranger, American participants were more likely to accept deception to maintain secrecy and protect the self, whereas Chinese participants were more acceptable of deception aimed to benefit the other. [8]

Another difference between cultures is the difference in deception between someone from a high-context and low-context culture. Someone from a high-context culture is going to be more "implicit communication and rely more on context". [20]

Related Research Articles

Deception or falsehood is an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true. It is often done for personal gain or advantage. Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda and sleight of hand as well as distraction, camouflage or concealment. There is also self-deception, as in bad faith. It can also be called, with varying subjective implications, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification, ruse, or subterfuge.

Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception.

A microexpression is a facial expression that only lasts for a short moment. It is the innate result of a voluntary and an involuntary emotional response occurring simultaneously and conflicting with one another, and occurs when the amygdala responds appropriately to the stimuli that the individual experiences and the individual wishes to conceal this specific emotion. This results in the individual very briefly displaying their true emotions followed by a false emotional reaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonverbal communication</span> Interpersonal communication through wordless (mostly visual) cues

Nonverbal communication (NVC) is the transmission of messages or signals through a nonverbal platform such as eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, posture, use of objects and body language. It includes the use of social cues, kinesics, distance (proxemics) and physical environments/appearance, of voice (paralanguage) and of touch (haptics). A signal has three different parts to it, including the basic signal, what the signal is trying to convey, and how it is interpreted. These signals that are transmitted to the receiver depend highly on the knowledge and empathy that this individual has. It can also include the use of time (chronemics) and eye contact and the actions of looking while talking and listening, frequency of glances, patterns of fixation, pupil dilation, and blink rate (oculesics).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Haptic communication</span> Communication via touch

Haptic communication is a branch of nonverbal communication that refers to the ways in which people and animals communicate and interact via the sense of touch. Touch is the most sophisticated and intimate of the five senses. Touch or haptics, from the ancient Greek word haptikos is extremely important for communication; it is vital for survival.

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.

The uncertainty reduction theory, also known as initial interaction theory, developed in 1975 by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, is a communication theory from the post-positivist tradition. It is one of the few communication theories that specifically looks into the initial interaction between people prior to the actual communication process. The theory asserts the notion that, when interacting, people need information about the other party in order to reduce their uncertainty. In gaining this information people are able to predict the other's behavior and resulting actions, all of which according to the theory is crucial in the development of any relationship.

Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) is one of a number of theories that attempts to explain how individuals handle actual deception at the conscious or subconscious level while engaged in face-to-face communication. The theory was put forth by David Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996 to explore this idea that deception is an engaging process between receiver and deceiver. IDT assumes that communication is not static; it is influenced by personal goals and the meaning of the interaction as it unfolds. The sender's overt communications are affected by the overt and covert communications of the receiver, and vice versa. IDT explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges.

Information Manipulation Theory (IMT) & is a theory of deceptive discourse production, rooted in H. Paul Grice's theory of conversational implicature. IMT argues that, rather than communicators producing "truths" and "lies," the vast majority of everyday deceptive discourse involves complicated combinations of elements that fall somewhere in between these polar opposites; with the most common form of deception being the editing-out of contextually problematic information. More specifically, individuals have available to them four different ways of misleading others: playing with the amount of relevant information that is shared, including false information, presenting irrelevant information, and/or presenting information in an overly vague fashion. As long as such manipulations remain covert - that is, undetected by recipients - deception will succeed. Two of the most important practical implications of IMT are that deceivers commonly use messages that are composed entirely of truthful information to deceive; and that because this is the case, our ability to detect deception in real-world environments is extremely limited.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social information processing (theory)</span>

Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is an interpersonal communication theory and media studies theory developed in 1992 by Joseph Walther. Social information processing theory explains online interpersonal communication without nonverbal cues and how people develop and manage relationships in a computer-mediated environment. Walther argued that online interpersonal relationships may demonstrate the same or even greater relational dimensions and qualities (intimacy) as traditional face-to-face (FtF) relationships. However, due to the limited channel and information, it may take longer to achieve than FtF relationships. These online relationships may help facilitate interactions that would not have occurred face-to-face due to factors such as geography and intergroup anxiety.

The hyperpersonal model is a model of interpersonal communication that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can become hyperpersonal because it "exceeds [face-to-face] interaction", thus affording message senders a host of communicative advantages over traditional face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The hyperpersonal model demonstrates how individuals communicate uniquely, while representing themselves to others, how others interpret them, and how the interactions create a reciprocal spiral of FtF communication. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to others.

Judee K. Burgoon is a professor of communication, family studies and human development at the University of Arizona, where she serves as director of research for the Center for the Management of Information and site director for the NSF-sponsored Center for Identification Technology Research. She is also involved with different aspects of interpersonal and nonverbal communication, deception, and new communication technologies. She is also director of human communication research for the Center for the Management of Information and site director for Center for Identification Technology Research at the university, and recently held an appointment as distinguished visiting professor with the department of communication at the University of Oklahoma, and the Center for Applied Social Research at the University of Oklahoma. Burgoon has authored or edited 13 books and monographs and has published nearly 300 articles, chapters and reviews related to nonverbal and verbal communication, deception, and computer-mediated communication. Her research has garnered over $13 million in extramural funding from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Counterintelligence Field Activity, and the National Institutes of Mental Health. Among the communication theories with which she is most notably linked are: interpersonal adaptation theory, expectancy violations theory, and interpersonal deception theory. A recent survey identified her as the most prolific female scholar in communication in the 20th century.

Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit or explicit relational rules. These transgressions include a wide variety of behaviors. The boundaries of relational transgressions are permeable. Betrayal for example, is often used as a synonym for a relational transgression. In some instances, betrayal can be defined as a rule violation that is traumatic to a relationship, and in other instances as destructive conflict or reference to infidelity.

Non-verbal leakage is a form of non-verbal behavior that occurs when a person verbalizes one thing, but their body language indicates another, common forms of which include facial movements and hand-to-face gestures. The term "non-verbal leakage" got its origin in literature in 1968, leading to many subsequent studies on the topic throughout the 1970s, with related studies continuing today.

Othello occurs when a suspicious observer discounts cues of truthfulness. Essentially the Othello error occurs, Paul Ekman states, "when the lie catcher fails to consider that a truthful person who is under stress may appear to be lying", their non-verbal signals expressing their worry at the possibility of being disbelieved. A lie-detector or polygraph may be deceived in the same way, by misinterpreting nervous signals from a truthful person. The error is named after William Shakespeare's tragic play Othello; the dynamics between the two main characters, Othello and Desdemona, are a particularly well-known example of the error in practice.

Affiliative conflict theory (ACT) is a social psychological approach that encompasses interpersonal communication and has a background in nonverbal communication. This theory postulates that "people have competing needs or desires for intimacy and autonomy". In any relationship, people will negotiate and try to rationalize why they are acting the way they are in order to maintain a comfortable level of intimacy.

Social Mirror Theory (SMT) states that people are not capable of self-reflection without taking into consideration a peer's interpretation of the experience. In other words, people define and resolve their internal musings through other's viewpoint. SMT's background is derived from the 1800s from concepts related to the study of public opinion and social interaction by Wilhelm Dilthey, the German philosopher and sociologist.

Mark G. Frank is a communication professor and department chair, and an internationally recognized expert on human nonverbal communication, emotion, and deception. Dr. Frank conducts research and does training on micro expressions of emotion and of the face. His research studies include other nonverbal indicators of deception throughout the rest of the body. He is the Director of the Communication Science Center research laboratory that is located on the North Campus of the University at Buffalo. Under his guidance, a team of graduate researchers conduct experiments and studies for private and government entities. Frank uses his expertise in communication and psychology to assist law enforcement agencies in monitoring both verbal and nonverbal communication.

Nonverbal influence is the act of affecting or inspiring change in others' behaviors and attitudes by way of tone of voice or body language and other cues like facial expression. This act of getting others to embrace or resist new attitudes can be achieved with or without the use of spoken language. It is a subtopic of nonverbal communication. Many individuals instinctively associate persuasion with verbal messages. Nonverbal influence emphasizes the persuasive power and influence of nonverbal communication. Nonverbal influence includes appeals to attraction, similarity and intimacy.

Truth-default theory (TDT) is a communication theory which predicts and explains the use of veracity and deception detection in humans. It was developed upon the discovery of the veracity effect - whereby the proportion of truths versus lies presented in a judgement study on deception will drive accuracy rates. This theory gets its name from its central idea which is the truth-default state. This idea suggests that people presume others to be honest because they either don't think of deception as a possibility during communicating or because there is insufficient evidence that they are being deceived. Emotions, arousal, strategic self-presentation, and cognitive effort are nonverbal behaviors that one might find in deception detection. Ultimately this theory predicts that speakers and listeners will default to use the truth to achieve their communicative goals. However, if the truth presents a problem, then deception will surface as a viable option for goal attainment.

References

  1. 1 2 DePaulo, B.M., & Kirkendol, S.E. (1988). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In J. Yuille (Ed.),Credibility assessment (pp. 50–69). Belgium: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Burgoon, Judee K.; Floyd, Kory (2009). "Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction". Western Journal of Communication. 64 (3): 243–267. doi:10.1080/10570310009374675. ISSN   1057-0314. S2CID   151841769.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 DePaulo, Bella M.; Kirkendol, Susan E.; Tang, John; O'Brien, Thomas P. (1988). "The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions". Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 12 (3): 177–202. doi:10.1007/BF00987487. ISSN   0191-5886. S2CID   145347977.
  4. 1 2 Suchotzki, Kristina; Verschuere, Bruno; Van Bockstaele, Bram; Ben-Shakhar, Gershon; Crombez, Geert (2017). "Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception". Psychological Bulletin. 143 (4): 428–453. doi:10.1037/bul0000087. ISSN   1939-1455. PMID   28182460. S2CID   24404535.
  5. ↑ Burgoon, Judee K.; Buller, David B.; Dillman, Leesa; Walther, Joseph B. (1995). "Interpersonal Deception". Human Communication Research. 22 (2): 163–196. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00365.x. ISSN   0360-3989.
  6. ↑ Buller, David B.; Burgoon, Judee K. (1996). "Interpersonal Deception Theory". Communication Theory. 6 (3): 203–242. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x. ISSN   1050-3293. S2CID   146464264.
  7. ↑ "Communication Cache". Communication Cache. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Zhou, Lina; Lutterbie, Simon (2005). Kantor, Paul; Muresan, Gheorghe; Roberts, Fred; Zeng, Daniel D.; Wang, Fei-Yue; Chen, Hsinchun; Merkle, Ralph C. (eds.). "Deception Across Cultures: Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches". Intelligence and Security Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 3495: 465–470. doi:10.1007/11427995_44. ISBN   978-3-540-32063-0.
  9. 1 2 Gunderson, Christopher A.; ten Brinke, Leanne (2021). "The Connection Between Deception Detection and Financial Exploitation of Older (vs. Young) Adults". Journal of Applied Gerontology. 41 (4): 940–944. doi:10.1177/07334648211049716. ISSN   0733-4648. PMC   8966109 . PMID   34636708.
  10. 1 2 3 Jian, Zengdan; Zhang, Wenjie; Tian, Ling; Fan, Wei; Zhong, Yiping (2019). "Self-Deception Reduces Cognitive Load: The Role of Involuntary Conscious Memory Impairment". Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 1718. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01718 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   6682630 . PMID   31417456.
  11. ↑ Brennen, Tim; Magnussen, Svein (2020). "Research on Non-verbal Signs of Lies and Deceit: A Blind Alley". Frontiers in Psychology. 11: 613410. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   7767987 . PMID   33381072.
  12. 1 2 3 4 DePaulo, Bella (2003). "Cues of Deception" (PDF). Journal of Phycological Bulletin. 129 (1): 74–118. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74. PMID   12555795.
  13. ↑ Buller, D.; Burgoon, J. (1996). "Interpersonal Deception Theory". Communication Theory. 6 (3): 203–242. doi:10.1111/J.1468-2885.1996.TB00127.X. S2CID   146464264.
  14. ↑ Bopp, Lillian; Rosenfeld, Barry (2022-05-30). Assessment of Deception. doi:10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW89-1.
  15. ↑ Haque, Rafiul. "Motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  16. 1 2 3 Zimmerman, Laura (March 2016). "Monitor on Psychology". www.apa.org. Retrieved 2022-11-29.
  17. ↑ Burgoon, Judee K.; Hamel, Lauren M.; Blair, J. Pete; Twyman, Nathan W. (2020), Sternberg, Robert J.; Kostić, Aleksandra (eds.), "Factors that Facilitate or Impair Kinesic and Vocalic Nonverbal Behaviors During Interpersonal Deception", Social Intelligence and Nonverbal Communication, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 79–117, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34964-6_4, ISBN   978-3-030-34964-6, S2CID   213240821 , retrieved 2022-11-29
  18. ↑ Jian, Zengdan; Zhang, Wenjie; Tian, Ling; Fan, Wei; Zhong, Yiping (2019). "Self-Deception Reduces Cognitive Load: The Role of Involuntary Conscious Memory Impairment". Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 1718. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01718 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   6682630 . PMID   31417456.
  19. ↑ Buddies, Science. "Pinocchio's Arm: A Lie Detector Test". Scientific American. Retrieved 2022-12-06.
  20. ↑ Deeb, Haneen; Vrij, Aldert; Leal, Sharon; Verigin, Brianna L.; Kleinman, Steven M. (2020). "When and how are lies told? And the role of culture and intentions in intelligence‐gathering interviews". Legal and Criminological Psychology. 25 (2): 257–277. doi:10.1111/lcrp.12171. ISSN   1355-3259. S2CID   218625633.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.