Othello error

Last updated

Othello error 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," [1] their non-verbal signals expressing their worry at the possibility of being disbelieved. [2] A lie-detector or polygraph may be deceived in the same way by misinterpreting nervous signals from a truthful person. [3] 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.

Contents

History

The phrase "Othello error" was first used in the book Telling Lies by Paul Ekman in 1985. [4] The name was coined from Shakespeare's play Othello , which provides an "excellent and famous example" [1] of what can happen when fear and distress upon confrontation do not signal deception. In the play, [5] Othello falsely believes that his wife, Desdemona, has been cheating on him with another man. When confronted, she cries and denies it, all the while aware that her mien will be taken as evidence of guilt by her jealous husband. Seeing his wife's emotional distress, Othello ignores alternative, innocent explanations—like the possibility that she did not love another—and kills her, as his preconceptions biased his observation and, therefore, his judgments.

Othello made the mistake of assuming that he understood the source of Desdemona's anguish. He assumed that his wife's sobs when confronted were a sign of her guilt; he didn't understand that her grief was rooted not in guilt, but in her knowledge that there was no way to convince her husband of her innocence. [6]

Interpersonal deception theory

Interpersonal deception theory is the fundamental deception that can occur between two (or more) people face-to-face and is what drives the Othello error. David Buller and Judee Burgoon coined this theory after 25 experiments in which they would ask one participant to attempt to deceive another. They concluded that people often say things that are not the truth "To avoid hurting or offending another person, to emphasize their best qualities, to avoid getting into a conflict, or to speed up or slow down a relationship." [7] Following the lead of others who study verbal deceit, Buller and Burgoon label these three strategies falsification, concealment, and equivocation. The three differ in that falsification creates a fiction, concealment hides a secret, and equivocation dodges the issue, yet all three are types of deception. [7]

Buller and Burgoon think that the Othello error is typical of most interactions where honesty is an issue. Their theory explains why detection of deception (and detection of truth telling) is a hit-and-miss business. One could believe someone was lying when they were not, or one could believe their lies when they were being deceitful.

Post-9/11

The error was studied most extensively after 9/11. [8] Many law enforcement officials were on high alert for future attacks and quick to point the finger at "suspicious-looking" individuals. The process for determining who was a potential suspect was the "Facial Action Coding System," [9] which is a system to taxonomize human facial movements by their appearance on the face, based on a system originally developed by a Swedish anatomist named Carl-Herman Hjortsjö. [10] It was later adopted by Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen and published in 1978. However, in a situation in which not only law enforcement but also the general public are anxious and assiduous, the potential for Othello errors to creep into the real world is high. In a review of these practices by Lenese Herbert, it is stated that "invasive visual examination of faces and facial expressions for law enforcement purposes under the guise of protective administrative searches ineffectively protects national and airport security and violates reasonable expectations of privacy. FACS improperly provides unreasonable governmental activity with a legitimizing scientific imprimatur that conceals governmental agents' race- and ethnicity-based prejudices, which leads to targeting minorities' faces as portents of danger." [9]

Lie detectors

Lie detectors use questioning techniques in conjunction with technology to measure human responses to these stimuli to attempt to ascertain if that person is lying or telling the truth. The most longstanding and still most frequently used measure is the polygraph test. A polygraph, popularly referred to as a lie detector, measures and records several physiological indices such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while the subject is asked and answers a series of questions. [11] The polygraph is currently being used in 19 of 50 states in the US. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, and no judge can force a witness to go through with the test, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. The reason that the test is controversial, and the reason that lie detector tests are fundamentally flawed, is the Othello error—an especially emotional, angry or distraught subject produces similar results to a supposed liar. Ekman's Telling lies has a chapter dedicated to the usage of the polygraph, in which he discusses the element of "fear" and states that "the severity of the punishment will influence the truthful person's fear of being misjudged just as much as the lying person's fear of being spotted—both suffer the same consequences." [1]

Attempts to overcome this—such as the Matte-Quadri comparison technique that factors into the system the innocent examinee's fear of terror and quantifies the results, hence addressing physiological responses produced by that emotion [12] —have been met with scepticism. [13] [14]

Potential solutions

The lie catcher must make an effort to consider the possibility that a sign of an emotion is not a clue to deceit but a clue to how a truthful person feels about being suspected of lying. [1] When analyzing the body language of another, one must ascertain if the emotion sign of emotion is a fear of being caught lying or a fear of being falsely accused and negatively judged. The lie catcher must estimate both the emotions a suspect will be feeling if they are lying but also if they are being truthful. Just as not all liars will have every possible feeling about lying, not all truthful people will have every feeling about being under suspicion.

This is difficult and requires the lie catcher to have previous background knowledge of the suspect and the emotions they convey under different types of duress. The lie catcher needs to know the emotional characteristics of the suspect so that they are aware of what emotions they convey when they are suspected of wrongdoing versus when they actually have done wrong. Not everybody is likely to feel afraid, guilty, angry, and so on when they know they are suspected of wrongdoing or lying. It depends in part upon the personality of the suspect.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polygraph</span> Device that attempts to infer lying

A polygraph, often incorrectly referred to as a lie detector test, is a device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions. The belief underpinning the use of the polygraph is that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated from those associated with non-deceptive answers; however, there are no specific physiological reactions associated with lying, making it difficult to identify factors that separate those who are lying from those who are telling the truth.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lie</span> Intentionally false statement made to deceive

A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone. The practice of communicating lies is called lying. A person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar. Lies can be interpreted as deliberately false statements or misleading statements. Lies may also serve a variety of instrumental, interpersonal, or psychological functions for the individuals who use them.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Ekman</span> American psychologist (born 1934)

Paul Ekman is an American psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco who is a pioneer in the study of emotions and their relation to facial expressions. He was ranked 59th out of the 100 most cited psychologists of the twentieth century. Ekman conducted seminal research on the specific biological correlations of specific emotions, attempting to demonstrate the universality and discreteness of emotions in a Darwinian approach.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Microexpression</span> Innate result of voluntary, involuntary, and conflicting emotional responses

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">Oculesics</span>

Oculesics, a subcategory of kinesics, is the study of eye movement, behavior, gaze, and eye-related nonverbal communication. The specific definition varies depending on whether it applies to the fields of medicine or social science.

Surprise is a brief mental and physiological state, a startle response experienced by animals and humans as the result of an unexpected event. Surprise can have any valence; that is, it can be neutral/moderate, pleasant, unpleasant, positive, or negative. Surprise can occur in varying levels of intensity ranging from very-surprised, which may induce the fight-or-flight response, or little-surprise that elicits a less intense response to the stimuli.

Lie detection is an assessment of a verbal statement with the goal to reveal a possible intentional deceit. Lie detection may refer to a cognitive process of detecting deception by evaluating message content as well as non-verbal cues. It also may refer to questioning techniques used along with technology that record physiological functions to ascertain truth and falsehood in response. The latter is commonly used by law enforcement in the United States, but rarely in other countries because it is based on pseudoscience.

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.

The bogus pipeline is a fake polygraph used to get participants to truthfully respond to emotional/affective questions in the survey. It is a technique used by social psychologists to reduce false answers when attempting to collect self-report data. As an example, social desirability is a common reason for warped survey results.

The Wizards Project was a research project at the University of California, San Francisco led by Paul Ekman and Maureen O'Sullivan that studied the ability of people to detect lies. The experts identified in their study were called "Truth Wizards". O'Sullivan spent more than 20 years studying the science of lying and deceit. The project was originally named the Diogenes Project, after Diogenes of Sinope, the Greek philosopher who would look into people's faces using a lamp, claiming to be looking for an honest man.

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.

The Silent Talker Lie Detector is an attempt to increase the accuracy of the most common lie detector, the polygraph, which does not directly measure whether the subject is truthful, but records physiological measures that are associated with emotional responses. The Silent Talker gives the evaluator access to viewing microexpressions by adding a camera to the process. The creators claim that microexpressions are actual indicators of lying, while many other things could cause an emotional response. Since microexpressions are fleeting, the camera allows the examiner to capture data that otherwise would have been missed. However, the scientific community is not convinced that this system accomplishes what it claims and some call it pseudoscience.

Facial expressions are used to communicate emotions. They can also occur solitarily, without other people being present. People often imagine themselves in social situations when alone, resulting in solitary facial expressions. Toddlers and children in early childhood use social cues and contexts to discriminate and recognize facial expressions. They develop at this early stage facial expressions in order to provoke reactions from their caregivers and receive nurturance and support. Children reflect their peers' emotions in their own expressions for social interaction.

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.

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.

fMRI lie detection is a field of lie detection using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). FMRI looks to the central nervous system to compare time and topography of activity in the brain for lie detection. While a polygraph detects anxiety-induced changes in activity in the peripheral nervous system, fMRI purportedly measures blood flow to areas of the brain involved in deception.

Motivation impairment effect (MIE) 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 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. 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.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Ekman, P. (1985). Telling Lies. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN   0393337456.
  2. K. D. Harrison, Forensic Interviewing (2013) p. 76
  3. K. Fiedler, Social Communication (2011) p. 327
  4. Ekman, P.; Frank, M. G. "Lies That Fail" (PDF). Retrieved 2015-11-05. In Lewis, M. & Saarni, C. (Eds.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 184-200). New York: Guilford Press.
  5. Shakespeare, William. "Othello" (PDF). EMC Publishing, LLC. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  6. "Body Language: Why You Should Avoid Othello's Error | Mr. Media Training". 2014-04-03. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  7. 1 2 Buller, David B.; Burgoon, Judee K. (1996). "Interpersonal Deception Theory" (PDF). Communication Theory. 6 (3): 203–242. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x. S2CID   146464264. Archived from the original on 2016-03-23.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  8. "The Othello Error Makes You Sure Everyone is Lying". io9. 16 May 2014. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  9. 1 2 Herbert, Lenese C. (2007). "Othello Error: Facial Profiling, Privacy, and the Suppression of Dissent" (PDF). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. 5: 79–129. SSRN   1547194.
  10. Hjortsjö, CH (1969). Man's face and mimic language. OCLC   909592
  11. Rosenfeld, J. P. (1995). "Alternative Views of Bashore and Rapp's (1993) alternatives to traditional polygraphy: a critique". Psychological Bulletin. 117 (1): 159–166. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.159.
  12. James, Matte (1996). Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification - Lie Detection. J. a. M. Pubns. ISBN   0-9655794-0-9.
  13. Cushman, B. "Is Matte's Inside Track the Answer to False Positives, False Negatives and Countermeasures? There is Reason to Fear that Hope is Gone" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. Verschuere, B.; Meijer, E. & Merckelbach, H. (2008). "The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique: It's just not science: A critique to Mangan, Armitage, and Adams (2008)". Physiology & Behavior. 95 (1–2): 27–28. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.06.002. S2CID   54251001.

Further reading