They had no prior knowledge of, or relations with, the subjects featured in the stimulus material. The stimulus material was pre-taped footage from a previous experiment; 26 “liars” and 26 “truth tellers”, all of whom were young adults. The “truth telling” 26 adults played connect 4 with a person dressed as a civil war Confederate, and during this time period, another proctor for the experiment walked onto the room and wiped off math formulas from the black board.The other 26 “liars” did not do any of those things, but were simply brought Into a room where they were told by a proctor to the experiment that If they were to receive the E that was promised to them, and not have to write an essay/paper (these are all students), they Ana to contrive a compelling story, Walt ten aspects AT tenet Totally story Dealing similar to the aspects that the “truth telling” group really experienced (notably the connect 4 game, and the erased math formulas) (Fri.
, Seahorse, Koura, & Bull, 2004).Afterwards, they taped a 5 question long interrogation, and this became the stimulus material for the current experiment (Fri. et al. , 2004). Observers in this experiment were trained on and “nonverbal” cues that would probably arise throughout the interrogations, and the respective hosts in which they likely exhibit themselves. These cues were determined by other supportive research (Fri.
et al. , 2004). Observers became more accurate lie detectors when conducting detailed analyses of verbal and non-verbal cues, as they relate to deceptive and non-deceptive individuals (Fri. et al. , 2004).After receiving this training, all participants reported having some level of comfort and understanding with their task (Fri.
et al, 2004). Each observer then started viewing stimulus material, and was responsible for recording the frequency of the specific cues of the subjects featured on the film. The course of this took one and a half days, with breaks in between. Observers were not permitted to communicate with each other about the experiment. At the end of the second viewing of each subject’s testimony, observers had to make a “rapid Judgment”, where they were to determine if the subject was telling the truth, or lying.Each observer was compensated IEEE.
The findings of this experiment were surprisingly positive. There was a good positive correlation among different observers, there was a satisfactory positive correlation between cue frequencies and the “rapid Judgments”, there was a correlation between the frequencies of respective cues and the “rapid judgments” observers made, and there was a combined overall 74% accuracy rate of all observers (which was due to the “fatigue effect” of an observer) (Fri. et al.
, 2004). This experiment presents several new findings, while reinforcing previous research n the field of deception.Most universally, the implications of this experiment’s findings give significantly more liberty to an individual’s “rapid Judgments”, especially those that work with deception and deceptive individuals on an everyday basis (I. E. Police officers). The highly positive observer deceit detection rate also reiterates and validates previous research regarding verbal and non-verbal behaviors and their consistency with lying (I. E.
Someone telling the truth is more likely to produce a larger quantity of seemingly irrelevant or obscure details in comparison with a liar).At least two other studies are cited, where the experiment was structured in much the same manner, and deceit detection rates consistently reached about 80% in frequency when participants were highly trained (Fri. et al, 2004). Other research has also proven that people can be reliable lie detectors, with basic training. Subjects who were informed to analyze such things as smiles and pitch of voice could correctly classify 86% of people who are lying and people who are telling the truth in one experiment (Fri. et al, 2004).In another test, signs of emotion that emerged via subtle social expressions helped subjects classify approximately 80% of the people as having been lying or honest. In an experiment regarding verbal detection tools (criteria-based content analysis, or CAB, for short), and reality monitoring, 70% of individual truthful and lying statements could be correctly identified (Fri.
et al, 2004) Critique: we nave Tuna a gentleman Dye ten name AT Enamel Declare Tanat NAS mace statements that are against what Seahorse has done.As Michael Declare has stated, “Heightened arousal due to the emotionality of high stake lies is what leads to increased arousal and deception cue leakage” (Declare, 2000). We would agree that the emotion that was involved in the deception task was not enough to cause someone to break under pressure. In an experiment by Default and colleagues (1992), Judges could not tell the difference between the truth-tellers and highly expressive people. The task in the experiment was a task that involved little emotion.The experiment that Seahorse and colleagues preformed involved videos from another experiment, and the subjects were to play a game of connect 4 or wipe information Off blackboard then lie about it.
These are not very emotional situations. With that also comes the cognitive psyche. Does saying “l did not wipe off the board” and “l did not cheat at playing Connect 4” involve cognitive operation? These are simple lies to tell. In the experiment the subjects were told to give a convincing story about what they did. These aren’t going to challenge a person emotionally as if they had to lie about stealing a car.When Declare (2000) writes about another laboratory experiment, he states that “the negative laboratory deception findings may not be externally valid, due to an inability to replicate the emotionality and arousal brought forth by real life interrogations.
” As Declare (2000) tastes, “Motivation has proven to be an important factor behind both the effectiveness of deception and the interpretation of the mixed and conflicting results within the lie detection literature. ” We feel that Decree’s statements are true yet again.The subjects lying were told to create convincing stories to lie with.
They were told that they would receive E if they did a good Job with the story. If they didn’t come up with a good story, than they would have to write an essay. This isn’t much motivation. When people lie in the real world, they lie to escape embarrassment or to stay out of Jail.
We feel that another argument would deal with the size of the experiment. The experiment included 5 observers, 2 male and three female and videotapes of 26 liars and 26 truth-tellers. This would not be enough for a true experiment.There weren’t enough observers to gain a true method of answering a hypothesis. There needed to be many more people involved with the experiment to get a divers group of people.
Who’s to say that those five people aren’t Just very observant or detail oriented? They would be able to pick up subtleties better than others. The last problem that we had with the experiment was the age range of the observers, which was quite limited. The observers were between the ages of 19 and 21 . It would have been better to have a wider age range, to help show how intent we can be when we age.The videos that were used also had a narrowed range of subjects. The videos were of adults.
It would have been helpful if there were videos that were better designed for this experiment. Seahorse used videos from another experiment instead of creating videos to make sure that there were people doing a variety of different “tells” in their lies. This would have helped to narrow the margin f similarities, and it would have allowed a greater range of data to come from the experiment.
Conclusion: In conclusion, we Tell Tanat Sneakers sat rate Walt a great experiment. 0 see IT UN- trained people could tell if others were lying would have been a great addition to the field of the psychology of lie deception. However, Seahorse and colleagues did not go about performing the experiment with consideration of scientific method. There were many flaws that made the experiment almost obsolete. The fact that they used videos from another experiment and only used 5 subjects for the experiment shows that hey assume that these 5 people can account for everyone’s ability to detect liars. Then there was what the liars were lying about.