-British spelling must be used. UK writer preferred.
-Write an essay of no more than 4,000 words (excluding references). As for previous coursework you should cite your sources throughout your work and attach a full reference list, in alphabetical order, at the end.
The focus should be on debunking the myths that surround deceptive (lie) behaviour and then suggesting alternative techniques that may be useful (based on research findings) in detecting deceit in young offenders.
Must refer to the essential reading list –
Nonverbal Cues versus Verbal Cues
Laypersons, alongside practitioners, have been increasingly interested in the question of whether people behave in a different way when they are deceiving match up to to when they are honest. Apparently, the exploration for behavioural cues to deceit is also time-honoured and has become vigorous in the past several decades. In the year 1981, DePaulo together with Rosenthal published a comprehensive meta-analysis regarding cues to deceit. Accordingly, their exploration for all reports of the extent to which nonverbal and verbal cues took place differentially during deceitful communication in comparison with truthful ones led to 159 approximates of 19 behavioural cues to deceit (Akehurst et al., 2004). Apparently, the approximates were from 36 autonomous samples. Numerous successive reviews updated their meta-analysis, but the amount of the additional approximates was small. Primarily, other reviews have been more inclusive but not quantitative. In light of this, deception can be defined as the deliberate effort to mislead others. Ideally, falsehoods conveyed by individuals that are self-deceived or mistaken are not lies. However, unembroidered truths formulated to delude are deceptions. Even though many scholars differentiate between lying and deceiving, this paper uses the term interchangeably.
A considerable amount of literature has discussed nonverbal cues (NVC) alongside verbal cues (VC) to lying. Apparently, the methodical dependability of the presumption of deception relies on the relevance of the fretfulness postulation to the insincere process. In such a case, both VC alongside NVC to dishonesty are seen as associates of fretfulness with the subsistence of deceit. Nonetheless, this conduit is suspicions in theory. Concisely, there are deceptions, which do not lead in fretfulness because the origin of it is not the deceit itself, all the time. However, the investigate regarding deception is tremendously and progressively increasing in an appealing way because the capability of triumphant deceptions recognition appears to be looked at as an accomplishment of elevating the human intelligence (Binkley, 2011). Looking at the world of VC alongside NVC, it can be emphasize that both are valuable. Thus, in this paper, an effort has been made to compare and distinguish their expediency when utilized for the function of interrogating young offenders in the authentic forensic perspective. In respect to this discussion, a conclusion will be made that there exists a breach between the deception science and the context of forensic, and other techniques will be proposed to link it.
The NVC to deceit
The assumptions of NVC to deceit are striking. They rely on the principle that there are behaviours oblivious to the deceiver that are suggestive of dishonesty. Apparently, the NVC to deception are viewed from three distinctive or simultaneous perspectives; the cognitive load and emotions experienced by the liars during deceiving alongside the efforts of the liar to influence their behaviour to come out as truthful. In this case, the NVC to deception may be emotional cues such as guilt, and fear, the cognitive load such as the complexity of the lying process, or manipulation efforts such as forming particular facial expressions (Talwar & Crossman, 2012). Further, it is believed that the deceiver even, deliberately making efforts to manipulate his/her behaviour, he/she cannot do so all the behaviours concurrently.
The NVC are seen when these interior processes are exteriorized via the kinesiology of the face or the body, typically referred to as “body language”, or via the sounds that are produced. Thus, they can be auditory or visual but in the dearth of any verbalization or speech. The way of receipting the NVC is principally senses or the human examination. Additionally, they can be received unconsciously or consciously, unintentionally or deliberately, and instinctively. In this case, they may result in the ideology that they are technically indistinct, as well as, highly prejudiced as to their recognition and then their elucidation. Pithily, in the efforts to maximize their scientific value, the NVC become increasingly vulnerable to scientific approaches that allow them to exceed the human examination and acquire a hyper-human porch such as the examination of facial micro-expressions by the utilization of software.
Emphasizing on the NVC received via human examination, it gives the impression that everyone has a picture of a known liar in the mind. Apparently, the picture is constructed from personal experiences, images and knowledge regarding liars, and usually, it results in several cues such as increased voice pitch, blinking eyes, sweaty fingers, gaze aversions and so on. These are believed to be connected to the behaviour of lying (Akehurst et al., 2011). Essentially, past the personal liars alongside the predisposition of generalising the deployment of the recognized cues to deceit, there is the enquiry of if any of the cues is connected to the behaviour of lying. Principally, the research regarding NVCX to deception has debunked some of the myths concerning the orthodox liar. Now, it is well known there exists no common body language for lying. For example, it was established that some liars displayed fewer smiles, lesser gaze aversions, speech disturbances and body movements than some truth tellers.
NVC’s scientific value is conventionally evaluated via the precision rates in deceit detection depending on NVC (Granhag, & Hartwig, 2008). The precision rates are normally assessed in the laboratory, in which the subjects are asked to tell a previously recognized lie. The higher the precision of perceiving the truth tellers resulted into the conclusion that the ability of people to judge the signal of others is based on truth. Additionally, the ability of professionals was also evaluated to score slightly above or around the level of chance. The lack of standard approach for establishing the divergences between truth-tellers and liars when depending on body language, or rather its uncertainty resulted in the research of VC to deceit.
The VC to deceit
Apparently, the VC are more methodically advanced compared to the NVC and are seen as extensively accurately, as well as, objectively indicative of lies. Essentially, it is alleged that cheating can be made via language, in that there exists VC that are symptomatic to lying, and that the know-how concerning them enhances the capability for their perception. Ideally, the VC can be written or spoken. Decisively, the spoken deception cues are not essentially written deceit cues if they are malformed into written words. Moreover, there is a verbal substance in VC that is explored by content or text examination based on syntactic or lexical or other para-verbal aspects alongside making categorizations as to the overall impression, quantity and quality. In this case, the obliging Linguistic Inquiry and WordCount (LIWC) software was also invented as well as frequently utilized (Alison et al., 2006).
There exists the conventional Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) with the deployment of the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) alongside the Reality Monitoring (RM) method. Apparently, the CBCA are based on motivational alongside cognitive aspects preceding the theory that the declaration regarding the actual occurrence should be divergent in substance from a declaration concerning a made-up occurrence. Further, the RM is based on factors of reminiscence. In addition, there are numerous proposed tools such as the Scientific Content Analysis with less defined criteria list. Further, there are computerised methods of evaluating truthfulness. Thus, emphasising on RM and SVA, it is essential to note that SVS exploration was reviewed to evaluate the reliability of testimony from children in sexual offence trials. Hartwig et al., (2011) explored the influence of age on the deployment of CBCA, engrossing in much younger ages. He concluded that SVA valuations are not adequately precise to be accepted as substantiation from experts, apart from their helpfulness in explorations by the police. Additionally, it was found that RM as a helpful option to CBCA for the dissociation of truth-tellers from deceivers. RM basis itself on the presupposition that the true reminiscences have a divergent eminence that the untrue reminiscences that they would be summoned up from a perceptual basis utilizing additional sensory data rather than allusions to cognitive processes.
In general, looking at VC, they are known as pre-listed reliability criteria. Thus, in similar terms, the detector usually starts with a presupposition of the statement’s deceitfulness and he/she attempts to establish, elucidate and explain the previously recognized cues to the truth (words’ repetition, self-references, unique words and so on) to make a honourable decision. Therefore, this ‘inverted’ beginning point of deception sensing through the utilization of dependability indicators is itself challenging and may result into truth-biases in a similar way as in NVC. Thus, to this scrutiny linked to the establishments of the research suggesting that in deed CBCA measures are more prone to be definite when the canvasser recognizes the verbal description is true as Binkley (2011) lately summarized.
VC against NVC to lying alongside the context of forensic
VC to deceit are more constructive compared to NVC in the course of an investigation by the police, more so in lie/true discrimination in young suspects. Asides from the advancement done, the science remains opposed with reference to VC to deception in regards to the number of words used by liars, whether they use more negative emotion phrases or words and so on as also happens in NVC to deception (Blandon-Gitlin et al., 2005). Further, it appears that there are no common answers as for why there are conflicting study findings. Though the system of immoral justice would be more securely based on VC to deceit instead of NVC, and CBCA are by now being utilized in some European nations, it is hard to highlight that VC are more functional than MVC (Craig et al., 1999). Additionally, it is worth noting that both NVC and VC are merely indicators. Usually, the deceit does not occur in a solitary word, faction, or moment. The procedure of lying is categorized by stability; the legal process as well. The lie be in many diverse forms at the numerous divergent phases of the criminal process where also the communication is not restricted to only nonverbal or verbal. The CBCA was never intended neither to have an independent application of the SVA nor to differentiate the liars from the truth-tellers. They amount to integrity rather than truthfulness evaluation strategy.
Concerning VC to deception, the focus should be applied to the fact that young individuals usually speak in a different way than want they write. Further, they might externalize visual cues that are contradicting to the substance of their spoken accounts. Essentially, in the criminal process the young suspects are not normally given a paper together with a pen to put in writing their version alongside whatever they are contemplating by themselves. Usually, oral questioning is done, and these versions are converted into on paper proclamation. Thus, the VC as regards the suspects’ on paper assertions that are utilized for the study’s experiment are not authentic on paper VC to deceit. Therefore, it is emphasised that more safety would be through the implementation of oral VC to the documented content (Crossman & Lewis, 2006). Apparently, the expediency of on paper VC in the legal procedures is normally asynchronous. Further, it is restricted to the texts’ content that are either unrelated to the interview regarding the crime committed or written in the past by the young suspect.
One key explanation as to why one could accept the utilization of VC and NVC to deception in the forensic context is the inevitability to minimize the prevalence of untrue confessions. It gets even more difficult to disconnect the truth from the lie when a young suspect that is based on untrue memories internalizes this. Nonetheless, further than this accepted stipulation, the legal system requires to be based on sturdy study findings. Apparently, the content of anticipated lie concerning individual culpability is not comparable to the lie concerning a cinema movie. Conceivably, a lot of the MVC and VC explorations, though obliging, utilize as subjects students and other individuals that are asked to tell a slouch (Edelstein et al., 2006). Therefore, from this beginning point, it can be observed that there are numerous other discrepancies. Individuals implicated in the system of criminal justice as infers are normally more erudite. Thus, they can apply more deceptive strategies alongside a wider variety of the recognized VC or NVC. Additionally, the study illustrates that when young individuals are told regarding the cues correlated to lying, they might attempt to influence their language or behaviour to control their interviewer’s or observer’s impression concerning the legitimacy (Granhag & Hartwig, 2008). Thus, it is an inevitable thought that currently, every person can have uncomplicated access to an ally of data engrossing information concerning cues, which are correlated to lying. Essentially, this factor results into suspicions regarding the appropriateness of the existing research on deceit with the requirements of the structure of justice. Suspects in a factual forensic framework normally recognize the concern that they might be investigated about; thus have all the time to do some self-introspection before being questioned. The physical, cognitive and even the emotional condition of the suspect may influence their internal state. Thus, it would be methodologically impractical to elucidate that the origin of VC or NVC to detection is the deceit itself and not their fearful know-how of the penalty of being caught or taken to jail. On the same note, it would of no essence for the legal system of justice to acknowledge methodical proof devoid of a sturdy foundation of significance as it would lead to jeopardizing the ceremonial asceticism of the process, alongside the justice itself.
Focusing on the ceremonial asceticism, it is significant to note that, irrespective of the deployment of the CBCA in some European county courts alongside law enforcement interviews with adults, it should be known that the children infers in Wales and England have particular bureaucratic rights. The rights only might avert the grounding of the entire honesty evaluation on the basis of VC or NVC all through the entire process (Fisher et al., 2009). Further opinions are forced if the suspects are juvenile individuals. Specifically, youths are habitually involved in gang crimes where they might contemplate the substance of deception with their group members and influence their within-pair uniformity to generate a truth intuition (Leach et al., 2004). In such a case, the tools that are invented to bring out cues from particular theme are not adequate to perceive the truth because the implication of uniformity has an essential function. Thus, co-offender preparation influences the VC being linked with the propinquity of the statement, the with-pair uniformity and the plausibility.
Essentially, one could contemplate that younger individual’s talent for insincerity is flawed though they can access the internet and learn how to circumvent being apprehended due to their bodily, social as well as emotional immaturity. Even though they are not as developed as the adults in regards to their social, expressive, cognitive aptitudes, and nonverbal expressional traits, they are compelling deceivers (Frank et al., 2009). Essentially, they are compelling liars from an early age, and their uncovering is a complicated task even at their changing development. Though both RM and CBCA are helpful in differentiating truths from lies, both are designed to evaluate lengthy statements while young suspects normally avail short ones.
After looking at the above context, the protestations that are brought forward for precision and reliability of this honesty evaluation are almost similar for both VC and NVC strategies. Principally, they concern the efficiency of VC and NVC to dishonesty in the actual forensic framework alongside juvenile children. They further concern their methodological incapacity to differentiate individuals that may suffer from the symptoms of anxiety due to others or situational aspects, rather than to try to put together a story in the predictable manner (Hershkowitz et al., 2007). These evaluations are also inadequate of excellent and rigid empirical evidence, linked to the aspects of the forensic justice, devoid of rejecting their helpfulness in look forward to the phenomenon of false declarations.
The Subjective Gap between Law and Psychology
Due to existing precincts of deception study, criminal courts may logically perceive the deception study as an inappropriate sway in terms that judging the statement reliability alongside witnesses is a conventional judges’ work that decide so by utilizing wider judicial decisive factors. Progressing this ideology in regards to the judicial standards, the deception is not a biased situation. Apparently, in legal justice there are no truth-teller and liars as individual brands. The deception in the judicial process is an inconsistency stipulation of a statement that consequently is not accepted as being true, rather than something peculiar or that which should be particularly identified. Naming and Eliciting cues to cheating are more pertinent to excellent lawyering (Jones, 2007). When probing for legitimacy, proof, or part of it may perhaps be discarded in case it is not consistent with the rest of the proof alongside the existing proof. Nonetheless, the irregularity is also an extremely misconceived term in psychology and law relationship. Justice alongside law are social tools, and their aim is to poise the rights, together with the needs of individuals in the society; thus, to sustain the peace and social coexistence. The terms that are utilized in law, such as discrepancy, right or justice are perceived not so methodically, but in a wider manner as well as within the competence of the lay individuals. In similar terms, the judge’s conclusion has no meaning of a particular individual is the truth-teller and thus the other is a liar (Jones, 2007). It implies the societies need to believe a particular individual irrespective if he/she is telling lies or the truth, why and to which particular extent.
Usually, the judge analysis the truth of the evidence, or the intended truth. Thus, the secluded declarations alongside the lies engrossed in these may influence the effort to make the intended truth, but devoid of leaving some characterization for individuals (liar). Frank et al., (2009) referred to the edgy association involving law and psychology in elucidating human behaviour since the law has its elucidative criterion that are not white or black, truth or lie, they can be a thing in the mean. Further, this association was characterized by Davies & Beech (2012) as a “can of worms”. In light of this, one could contemplate the VC that begins from the reliability criteria are more pertinent to this judicial order as courts also seek for truth. Nonetheless, a new definitional way is required regarding consistency and deception in the context of forensic to bridge the gap between law and psychology so as to be able to emphasize on relevancy.
Based on the findings, one of the best alternatives is through combining the diverse techniques of detecting NVC and VC to deception. This would enhance the usefulness alongside assisting the judicial work. Apparently, the criminal procedure consists of recurring interviews including investigation, assessment in chief, cross-assessment and so on. Conceivably, the adversarial method of conducting the trials avails an excellent chance for deploying the techniques of interviewing for detecting lies. A proposal should be for additionally tested tools for enhancing or eliciting clues to lies via correspondence-based process and interviewing. This can be achieved by influencing the cognitive load in any divergent circumstances, alongside observing the alterations instead of trying to apprehend particular MVC or VC to deception. Emphasizing on investigative interviewing methods. Granhag & Stramwall (2002) recently proposed that the verifiability method could also benefit deceit detection. Further, research has indicated that detecting lies and truths become triumphant when speech content is considered.
Further, electroencephalography (EEG) could also be an important alternative. It utilizes electrodes located on the scalp to evaluate brain activity patterns triggered when useful information is recognized. Accordingly, operators show pertinent objects or images to subjects combined with particular interviewing methods to evaluate if they recognize them (Landstrom & Granhag, 2008). For example, a young offender may be shown numerous photographs of a particular crime scene, one that investigators require to know whether it is recognized by the suspect (Landstrom & Granhag, 2010).
Additionally, another option is the questioning alongside the test deceit recognition approach. Apparently, this approach is usually utilized more so in the efforts to detect lies from young suspects at home, or when at school, or at day care centres where parents alongside teachers question the suspects through numerous question categories (Liu et al., 2010). Ideally, the questions are classified into three; first, the irrelevant questions that aim at establishing the baseline for truthful answers and have no relationship to the key subject of the analysis. Second, the comparison queries that are indirectly correlated to the subject under scrutiny without directly referring to it. For example if a young suspect were being scrutinized for harming another child, there could be a query to try to determine whether he/she has hurt someone else before physically in order to determine whether he/she is connected to the present one (Yakhchalian and Khorrami, 2015). Finally, there are the queries designed as well as delivered to hearten the suspect to lie while answering the queries that are regularly utilized to determine a truthfulness baseline. The final set of questions is whose aim is to address matters of investigation procedure; in this category, the questions directly relate to the investigation’s subject (Zhang et al., 2013).
Further, another option would be the utilization of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) together with the Position Emission Tomography (PET) that foucese on the activity of the nervous system and not the peripheral nervous system (neurons).
Finally, the Use of Voice Analysis is also an excellent alternative. Voice analysis in children is a verbal analysis technique, which can be also used to identify whether a person is telling lies or not. In the context speech pattern and language analysis has been used since the 1960s to attempt to detect deception; however in the contemporary world with high level of technological advancement there is a shift to using of modern approaches such as computers to model characteristics of speech such as pitch, regularity, intensity and microtremors; and to identify minute distinctions in the voice thought to indicate that one is lying (Gamer, 2012). The technique of voice analysis uses many tactics to detect lies and has some features, which may not be possible in non-verbal technique; one attribute of voice investigation is that it can be done even over the telephone and as a result may be used covertly (Janssen, 2010).
Deceptive behaviours are surrounded by many myths, which bring misconception in trying to investigate a case or unveil truth between lies, the best methods or techniques, which can be applied in interrogation or investigation of cases to detect lies is to apply the findings of analysis from the scientifically tested techniques. The paper identifies some findings, which include; detection of deception is not only dependent on the presence of behaviours like gaze aversion, facial expression, sharp tone of voice, verbal expression, but how they relate matters a lot.
The diachronic science failure to examine a consistent tool for perceiving lies is an impediment for recognizing alongside measuring the expediency of VC and NVC in the perspective of forensic that has created its tools for elucidating human behaviour. Essentially, both NVC and VC to deceit are constructive, specifically at the phase of law enforcement questioning as previously discussed. However, they are inadequate to gain the confidence of the framework of forensic in regards to the young suspects. Besides, they cannot subrogate the legal resolution making regarding the precision. The new exigent deceit recognition methods for young offenders alongside fresh definition methods could bridge the breach between forensic context and deceit research concurrently through modifying the prevailing function of psychology in the judicial decision-making regarding truth.
However, based on the findings, there are several alternatives to deception detecting. Such include combining the diverse techniques of detecting NVC and VC to deception, the use of electroencephalography (EEG) and the use of the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) alongside the position emission tomography that focuses on the central nervous system activity and not the peripheral nervous system (neurons).
Akehurst, L, Bull, R., Vrij, A. &Koehnken, G. (2004). The effects of training professional groups and lay persons to use Criteria Based Content Analysis to detect deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18 (7), 877 – 891.
Akehurst, L., Manton, S. &Quandte, S. (2011). Careful calculation or a leap of faith?: A field study of the translation of CBCA ratings to final credibility judgements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25 (2), 236 – 243.
Alison, L., Kebbell, M., & Lewis, P. (2006).Considerations for experts in assessing the credibility of recovered memories of child sexual abuse.The importance
of maintaining a case-specific focus.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12
(4), 419 – 441.
Binkley, S. (2011).Happiness, positive psychology and the program of neoliberal governmentality.Subjectivity, 4(4), 371-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2011.16
Blandon-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Rogers, M. &Brodie, L. (2005). Detecting deception in children: An experimental study into the effect of event familiarity on CBCA ratings. Law and Human Behavior, 29 (2), 187 – 197.
Clemens, F., Granhag, P.A., Stromwall, L., Vrij, A., Landstrom, S., RoosafHjelmsater, E. &Hartwig, M. (2010). Skulking around the dinosaur: Eliciting cues to children’s deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(7), 925 – 940.
Craig, R.A., Scheibe, R., Raskin, D., Kircher, J.C., & Dodd, D.H. (1999). Interviewer questions and content analysis of children’s statements of sexual abuse.
Applied Developmental Science, 3 (2), 77-85.
Crossman, A. & Lewis, M. (2006). Adult’s ability to detect children’s lying. Behavioural Sciences and Law, 24 (5), 703 – 715.
Davies, G., & Beech, A. (2012). Forensic psychology. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Edelstein, R.S., Luten, T.L., Ekman, P., & Goodman, G. (2006). Detecting lies in children and adults. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 1-10.
Fisher, C. (2005). Deception research involving children: Ethical practices and paradoxes. Ethics and Behavior, 15 (3), 271 – 287.
Frank, M, G., O’ Sullivan, M., &Mensaco, M. A. (2009).Human behaviour and deception detection.In J. G. Voeller (Ed.), Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security.New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gamer, M., Klimecki, O., Bauermann, T., Stoeter, P. &Vossel, (2012). G. fMRI-activation patterns in the detection of concealed information rely on memory-related effects. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.7, 506–515
Granhag, P., &Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(3), 189-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160701645181
Granhag, P., &Stramwall, L. (2002). Repeated interrogations: verbal and non-verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 243-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.784
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P., Stromwall, L., Wolf, A., Vrij, A., &Hjelmsäter, E. (2011).Detecting deception in suspects: verbal cues as a function of interview strategy. Psychology, Crime & Law,17(7), 643-656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160903446982
Jones, R. (2007). Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective, Edited by Neil Brewer and Kipling D. Williams. Guilford Press, New York NY10012, USA, 2005.ISBN 1-59385-122-7. Criminal Behav.Ment. Health, 17(3), 191-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.633
Masip, J., Sporer, S., Garrido, E., &Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 99-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001726356
Talwar, V. & Crossman, A. (2012). Children’s lies and their detection: Implications for child witness testimony. Developmental Review, 32 (4), 337-359.
WU, S., JIN, S., CAI, W., & LI, S. (2012). Detecting Deception by Verbal Content Cues. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(3), 457-466.
Zhang, K., Frumkin, L., Stedmon, A., & Lawson, G. (2013). Deception in Context: Coding Nonverbal Cues, Situational Variables and Risk of Detection. Journal of Police And Criminal Psychology,28(2), 150-161.