Coordonator:

Prof. Univ. Dr. Elena Ciobanu

Masterande:
Raluca Daniela Fuioagă (căs. Diaconu)
Iustina Vasilica Cobuz (căs. Drugă)
 This article is supposed to reveal two types
of experiments which are examined strategies
where observers use to see cues of lying in
different kinds of situations.
 The first experiment implies five actors who
are expected to lie or to tell the truth in
simulated job interviews while there are forty-
one observers who are judged their
truthfulness.
 In the second one, the study is manipulated
the content of an answer and a nonverbal cue.
 According to some main sociological social
psychologists such as Mead, Goffman and
Turner, all of us are keep going to give the
impression that we act as the position we
occupy in the social life. Goffman said that we
image that the actor’s behavior is the same as
his roles.
So, the observer’s work is to infer a different
underlying reality of actor’s manifest behavior.
 There are suggested two general rules where
observers may use to identify if the actor’s
manifest behavior is telling the truth or is lying.
1. The ulterior motive rule (a variant of Kelly’s
discounting rule) means that self-serving behavior
is believed less.
2. The controllability rule focuses on the aspects of a
persons’ performance. The premise is if someone
cannot control it, he cannot fake it. This rule was
used by S. Freud and his descendants by relying
on dreams, forgettings, slips of the tongue and
other emotional difficulties in their patients’
behavior to find out the problems in which they
might be hiding.
 The research on lie detection has assumed that
uncontrollable behavior reveals the truth about a
potential liar, so, a polygraph should be able to
measure physiological consequences of stress.
 So, the observers use the controllability rule to
distinguish between actors who are experiencing
pleasant emotions or unpleasant ones when they
remark the actor’s bodies, hands and feet. Such as,
the actor who is lying used fewer illustrator hand
movements and had higher pitched voice.
 Five male college undergraduates participated a
simulated job interview in which they lied and told
the truth about equally often.
 The interviews were videotaped.
 The actors viewed their own videotape and
indicated when they have been lying or telling the
truth.
 Between 12 and 18 observers watched each tape
and competed for a prize ($25) by judging the
extent to which the actor was lying during each
answer.
 Other judges rated verbal, paralinguistic and
nonverbal characteristics of each answer.
 Observers judge, as true, the answers of actors
which are more plausible with shorter
hesitations.
 Also, they considered, as true, consistent and
concrete answers in which the actor smiled
less, shifted his position less and groomed
himself more.
 Some of the nonverbal behavior , like speech
latency were important for observers and
judges to identify the actors’ truthfulness.
 Information:
 74 subjects

 5-minute excerpt- from a simulated interview(3

questions)
 a female aplicant- dormitory counselor

 a male interviewer
 This experiment is dealing with the role of contexts and the type of cues an interviewed uses during an
interview.
It is made of three questions:

In the first, the interviewer asked about the candidate's experience in handling discipline
problems in a dormitory. The candidate discussed students' use of forbidden electrical appliances and
claimed to have handled problems successfully by gaining her students' respect and appealing to their
empathy for fellow students.

In the third question, the interviewer asked how the candidate would deal with suspected
drug selling in the dormitory. She replied that she would remind the suspected seller of the seriousness of
this action and of the severe university and legal sanctions and threaten to report the seller to a dean.

!!!The second question and answer and the candidate's paralinguistic behavior prior to this
answer were experimentally manipulated. Both versions of the interviewer's question asked if the
candidate smoked marijuana.
 The most important question was the second. This
question had two versions, a pro-marijuana one, and an
anti-marijuana one.The most important(both cases) was
the end:‘Do you use drugs?/ ..just let me ask you
whether you use drugs?’.
The end has almost the same form. It gives the
impression that the interviewer used only one structure.
The answers were a pro-one: she smoked several
times, and a negative one, she never used marijuana
Observers said that the pro-marijuana answer was more
honest because she worked against her own self-
interest.
Observers worked with:
• a controllability rule- the use of contradictory,
suspicious, self-serving statements
• a motive rule- she has a reason.
 Observers identified two types of manipulation:
1. Stimulus manipulation- how the woman reacted to
those questions
2. Silence manipulation-the use of a 7-second pause( 4-
s blank tape, an uh! and a 3-second pause/ 1-second
pause- these were considered normal pauses).
Verbal
Non-
verbal
The most easily
-pause
accesible

*lying or *not

Least reliable- they are

easily controled
  The information that signals deception to an audience, comprises two different types of
cues:

-performance cues:

**the audience perceives that an actor has failed to adequately control some aspect of
his deceptive performance

**they are inseparable from the specifics of a

performance(from what a particular actor does)

-motivational cues:

**are situations or verbal contexts in which deception is likely.

**motivational cues often have their origins in social norms outside the actor's performance.
 Observers were moderately accurate in judging whether an actor was
lying or telling the truth in a simulated job interview,

 actors, when they lied, were more likely to give less plausible and shorter
answers with longer hesitations prior to starting,

 observers seemed to use the plausibility and the length of hesitation, as

well as the vagueness and lack of detail of the answer and its consistency
with earlier statements, the amount the actor smiled, shifted and
groomed, and other, as yet unidentified, cues to determine whether the
actor was lying.