Wright, G., Berry, C. J,. Bird, G. (2012). “You can’t kid a kidder”: Association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (6) 87.
by Chris Berry
Both the ability to deceive others, and the ability to detect deception, has long been proposed to confer an... more Both the ability to deceive others, and the ability to detect deception, has long been proposed to confer an evolutionary advantage. Deception detection has been studied extensively, and the finding that typical individuals fare little better than chance in detecting deception is one of the more robust in the behavioral sciences. Surprisingly, little research has examined individual differences in lie production ability. As a consequence, as far as we are aware, no previous study has investigated whether there exists an association between the ability to lie successfully and the ability to detect lies. Furthermore, only a minority of studies have examined deception as it naturally occurs; in a social, interactive setting. The present study, therefore, explored the relationship between these two facets of deceptive behavior by employing a novel competitive interactive deception task (DeceIT). For the first time, signal detection theory (SDT) was used to measure performance in both the detection and production of deception. A significant relationship was found between the deception-related abilities; those who could accurately detect a lie were able to produce statements that others found difficult to classify as deceptive or truthful. Furthermore, neither ability was related to measures of intelligence or emotional ability. We, therefore, suggest the existence of an underlying deception-general ability that varies across individuals.
Leader Deception Influences on Leader-Member Exchange and Subordinate Organizational Commitment
Griffith, J. A., Connelly, S., & Thiel, C. E. (2011). Leader deception influences on leader-member exchange and subordinate organizational commitment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18, 508-521.
Deception is a common and daily occurrence in organizations. Despite this, little is known about how leader deception... more Deception is a common and daily occurrence in organizations. Despite this, little is known about how leader deception influences follower perceptions and commitment to the leader and the broader organization. This laboratory experiment uses a low-fidelity simulation task to investigate the effects of leader deception on follower perceptions of leader–member exchange (LMX) and follower commitment to the organization. Moderating effects of financial outcomes that resulted from deception, or who gained from deception, were also tested. Results showed negative effects of leader deception on follower LMX perceptions and affective commitment. Leader financial gain worsened the effects of leader deception on LMX compared with organizational financial gain. Implications of these findings are discussed.
8 views
Seen by:5 views
Seen by:Detectando la mentira en lenguaje escrito
Co-authored with Rafael Valencia-García & Pascual Cantos. Published in Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural.
Deception in language has been studied from the perspective of several disciplines, being the most recent one opinion... more Deception in language has been studied from the perspective of several disciplines, being the most recent one opinion mining. Within this framework, the present study attempts to explore cues to deception in written Spanish, which has not been fully investigated yet. For our purposes, we have developed a framework based on a classifier using a Support Vector Machine (SVM) in order to detect deception in an ad hoc opinion corpus. We have used the psycholinguistic categories defined in LIWC (Pennebaker, Francis and Booth, 2001) through its four broad dimensions for the subsequent training of the abovementioned classifier. The findings reveal that truthful and deceptive texts in Spanish are indeed separable, being the two first dimensions, linguistic and psychological processes, the most relevant ones for fulfilling our aim.
Artificial Liars: Why Computers Will (Necessarily) Deceive Us and Each Other
the final version published in Ethics and Information Technology, 2: 113-119, 2000, Kluwer, Dordrecht
In H-C interaction, computer supported cooperation and organisation, computer mediated commerce, intelligent data... more
In H-C interaction, computer supported cooperation and organisation, computer mediated commerce, intelligent data bases, teams of robots. etc. there will be purposively deceiving computers. In particular, within the Agent-based paradigm we will have “deceiving agents”. Several kinds of deception will be present in interaction with the user, or among people via computer, or among artificial agents not only for malicious reasons (war, commerce, fraud, etc.) but also for goodwill and in our interest. Social control, trust, and moral aspects in artificial societies will be the focus of theoretical worm as well as of implementation. Is there any special affinity between AI and deception?
8 views
Seen by:Czy zdolność do oszukiwania uczyniła nas ludźmi?
published in 'Granice nauki' (The Limits of Science), in cooperation with 'Interia.pl' (04.04.2012) [scientific article for the general public]
Becoming none but tradesmen: lies, deception and psychotic patients
Ryan, C. J., G. De Moore, and M. Patfield. 1995. Becoming none but tradesmen: Lies, deception and psychotic patients. Journal of Medical Ethics 21: 72-76.
Is there ever any reason for a doctor to lie to a patient? In this paper, we critically review the literature on lying... more Is there ever any reason for a doctor to lie to a patient? In this paper, we critically review the literature on lying to patients and challenge the common notion that while lying is unacceptable, a related entity - "benevolent deception" is defensible. Further we outline a rare circumstance when treating psychotic patients where lying to the patient is justified. This circumstance is illustrated by a clinical vignette.
“You can’t kid a kidder”: Association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task
by Geoff Bird
Wright, G.R.T., Berry, C.J., & Bird, G. (2012). "You can't kid a kidder": Interaction between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, (6), 00087
Both the ability to deceive others, and the ability to detect deception, have long been proposed to confer an... more Both the ability to deceive others, and the ability to detect deception, have long been proposed to confer an evolutionary advantage. Deception detection has been studied extensively, and the finding that typical individuals fare little better than chance in detecting deception is one of the more robust in the behavioral sciences. Surprisingly, little research has examined individual differences in lie-production ability. As a consequence, as far as we are aware, no previous study has investigated whether there exists an association between the ability to lie successfully and the ability to detect lies. Furthermore, only a minority of studies have examined deception as it naturally occurs; in a social, interactive setting. The present study therefore explored the relationship between these two facets of deceptive behavior by employing a novel competitive interactive deception task. For the first time, signal-detection theory was used to measure performance in both the detection and production of deception. A significant relationship was found between the deception-related abilities; those who could accurately detect a lie were able to produce statements that others found difficult to classify as deceptive or truthful. Furthermore, neither ability was related to measures of intelligence or emotional ability. We therefore suggest the existence of an underlying deception-general ability that varies across individuals.
66 views
Seen by:31 views
Seen by:Lying about what you know or lying about what you do?
co-authored with Eric van Damme and Jan Potters
We compare communication about private information to communication about actions in a oneshot 2-person public good... more We compare communication about private information to communication about actions in a oneshot 2-person public good game with private information. The informed player, who knows the exact return from contributing and whose contribution is unobserved, can send a message about the return or her contribution. Theoretically, messages can elicit the uninformed playerís contribution, and allow the informed player to free-ride. The exact language used is not expected to matter. Experimentally, however, we find that free-riding depends on the language: the informed player free-rides less, and thereby lies less frequently, when she talks about her contribution than when she talks about the return. Further experimental evidence indicates that it is the promise component in messages about the contribution that leads to less free-riding and less lying.
Zjawisko kłamstwa w perspektywie nauk neurokognitywnych i ewolucyjnych [The Phenomenon of Lie in the Perspective of Neuroscience and Evolutionary Sciences]
published in: "Semina Scientiarum" 2009, no. 8, pp. 91-109.
10 views
Seen by:Writing After Long Silence
Prepared for a workshop on "Life-Writing" at the Huntington Library. Unpublished: do not cite or quote.
About the life stories in Helen Fremont's After Long Silence, a memoir about discovering that her Polish Catholic... more About the life stories in Helen Fremont's After Long Silence, a memoir about discovering that her Polish Catholic parents were Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.
145 views
Seen by:The Centered Self
Originally published in Self to Self (2006)
On being "grounded" or "centered", and its relation to trustworthiness. On being "grounded" or "centered", and its relation to trustworthiness.
54 views
Seen by:
