Personality and Deception Page 1
Running Head: Personality Types and Deception Cues
Do Introverts and Extraverts Use Different
Deception Cues In Detecting Deception?
Thesis Professor: Jack Dunning
Thesis Advisor: Andy Hepburn
Researcher: Andre Bedard
Algoma University College Personality and Deception Page 2
Introverts and Extraverts Use Different
Deception Cues In Detecting Lzcer J ion?
o y si u e g a ua es om A goma U i e si y Co ege we e es e wi e Eyse ck e so a i y Ques io ai e. e su ec s iewe a i eo eco i g o ece i e o u u i eos co ai i g ques io s e ai i g o occu a io , ea , e so a accom is me s, o ies a i es y e. u i g a ause a e eac i eo a ques io ai e was gi e . e
a ici a s we e eques e o a e e u u ess o e i e iewee, a aske o a e e i e cues o ei ecisio . I is s u y ece io cues suc as s eec e o , i eo i e iew co e , se ma i u a io , a ges u es, eye co ac , o e o oice, s eec is u a ces, os u a s i s a smi e u a io we e e a e o ei e i o e e o e a e e e so a i y c a ac e is ics. e esu s i ica e a e e we e o i e e ces e wee e a e s a i o e s i ei e es ima es o u u ess o cue im o a ce.
Introduction
Previous studies on deception mainly concentrated on the lie detection abilities of humans.
Researchers also have sought to isolate verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception in their studies, such as in the study done by Bond, Kahler and Paolicelli (1985). This study was successful in determining which cues were heightened during deceptions. The more a behaviour was associated with deception, the less it was associated with perceived deception. Liars affected the very behaviour that would make them look honest. A study conducted by Stiff, Miller and
Sleight (1989) tested whether unfamiliar or familiar situations influence information processing. In familiar situations, participants were influenced by verbal content while those in unfamiliar situations were influenced by both verbal and nonverbal cues. Situational factors influence Personality and Deception Page 3 information processing and affect the relative importance of verbal and nonverbal cues in judgments of authenticity. One study conducted by DePaulo and Toris (1985) used extraverted and introverted participants. Introverted and extraverted individuals each role played both extraverts and introverts in a way to convey information to naive or primed interviewers.
However the study designed deals with deception in a different way. This study is not intended to capture deception or to isolate verbal and nonverbal deception cues. The goal is to have a positive correlation with extraverted and introverted personalities with specific deception cues.
The hypothesis is that specific deception cues correspond to either introverted or extraverted personality characteristics. Studies by Mobbs (1968) and Kendon and Cook (1969) indicated a relationship between extraversion and eye contact. Extraverts initiated more looks than did introverts and initiated more speech bursts than did introverts. Extraverts have a speech-eye contact combination that is indicative of the more active level of interaction of the extraverts in the conversations. Introverted and extraverted individuals are biologically different. The differences between the two is located in the reticular activating system in the brain. This system monitors incoming neural impulses resulting from environmental stimulation. The environmental stimulation would cause an excitation process or an inhibition process depending on the personality type. Due to this difference in the cortical arousal level caused by the excitation and inhibition process, extraverts and introverts would focus on different environmental cues. The environmental stimulation would be the deceptive and truthful video interviews in my study. Personality and Deception Page 4
Method
a_. ici a s
Forty six undergraduates from Algoma University College were chosen to participate in the study.
The participants were be tested with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R).
Procedure
Forty six undergraduates from Algoma University College participated in the study. The
participants were asked to view a video recording of a person describing deceptive or truthful
personal events about themselves. The individual explained a story related with their occupation,
health, personal accomplishments, hobbies and lifestyle. A two minute pause following the video
allowed the participants to answer a questionnaire In total the experimental session contained
four videos, two being truthful and two being deceptive. The video was viewed in an Algoma
University College classroom. The length of the video interview lasted two minutes. The
questionnaire to be completed was administered following each video interview. The
questionnaire itself asked on a five-point scale whether the video interview was either truthful or
deceptive and listed nine deceptive cues. Each deception cue had beside it a 7-point grading scale
ranging from extremely important to extremely unimportant. The cues on the questionnaire are as
follows, tone of voice, eye contact, hand gestures, self manipulation, video interview content,
speech error, speech disturbances, postural shifts, and smile duration. The video showed the
character sitting and the waist/torso area will be captured as to see the body positioning for better judgement. The purpose for this is that deceptive individuals tend to shift their body when Personality and Deception Page 5 deceiving and hand gestures would be more visible with a wide or zoomed out shot. The distance between the camera and the subject being interviewed would be a comfortable 2 feet. After completing the fourth and last questionnaire, the subjects were required to answer the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire is able to test for four personality dimensions (Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism and Lie Scale). The test was fairly easy to answer and only required the participants to answer one hundred "Yes" or "No" question.
?su s
The results clearly indicate that there was no difference between extraverts and introverts and an association with specific deception cues. For the accuracy level in detecting deception, the main effect of truthful and deception was not significant. F (1, 132) = 1.36, MSE = 0.245. The participants could not accurately depict the difference between the group of video interviews. The following nine deception cues show interesting results with not just the personality types but also with the batch of videos shown as well as the question asked for a deception cue. For speech error, the main effect was not significant, F(1, 132) = 2.93, MSE = 0.117. Speech error was not a deception cue which correlated with a personality type, although there was a significant interaction with the question of speech error on the questionnaire, F(1, 132) = 5.93, MSE =
0.001. This could indicate that the interviewees displayed a large amount of speech error no matter what video format (truthful/deceptive). For self manipulation, the main effect was not significant, F(1, 132) = 1.81, MSE = 0.149. The p value being < .05. Self manipulation was not a Personality and Deception Page 6 deception cue which correlated with an introvert or extravert. The analysis of variance for video information did not show any correlation. There was no significance, F(1, 132) = 1.37, MSE =-
0.255. The information given by the interviewees in the videos did not estimate what personality type would be more prone to focus on to more. For hand gestures, the main effect was not significant, F(1, 132) = 0.67, MSE 0.516. There was no correlation with personality type and the use of hand gestures. For eye movement, the main effect was not significant, F(1, 132) = 0.79,
MSE 0.456. Eye movement was not a deception cue which correlated with a personality type, although there a close difference with the importance of eye movement on the questionnaire, F(1,
132) = 2.62, MSE = 0.053. The analysis of variance for tone of voice showed no significance. The main effect of tone of voice was not significant with the following as results, F(1, 132) = 0.38,
MSE = 0.768. With the p value being < .05, there was no correlation for tone of voice and personality differences. For speech disturbances, the main effects was not significant, F(1, 132) =
0.47, MSE = 0.854, although there was a significant interaction with the question on the questionnaire pertaining to speech disturbances. The main effect of the question on speech disturbances received, F(1, 132) = 5.02, MSE = 0.002. For postural shifts, the main effect was not significant but rather close to the p value. F(1, 132) = 2.15, MSE = 0.097. There was a close correlation with postural shifts but no significance. For the last deception cue, smile duration also resulted with no significance. The main effect of smile duration was, F(1,132) = 4.76, MSE =-
0.895. The results indicate that extraversion and introversion are not personality types which can be accurately pinpointed to a specific deception cue. Personality and Deception Page 7
e e e ces
o , C., Ko e , K. a ao ice i, . ( 8 . e miscommu ica io o ece io : A
a a i e e s ec i e. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2 , . 4 .
e au o, . a e au o, . ( 8 .Ca ece io y sa es e so s a cus ome s e
e ec e oug o e a e a iou cues? Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
8, . 2 .
e au o, ., ose a , . a G ee , C. ( 82 . iag osi g ece i e a mi e
messages om e a a o e a cues. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 8, 4 446.
e au o, . a o is, C. ( 8 . E ec s o ac ua ece io a sus icious ess o
ece io o i e e so a e ce io s. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, o . 4 , o. , 06 0 .
i e age, G., Ma o , . a i eau , M. ( 8 . ecog i io o isc e a o e a
messages a e ec io o ece io . Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 2 . Personality and Deception Page 8
Stiff, J, Miller, G. and Sleight, C. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in
judgment of honesty and deceit. ou a o e so a i y a socia syc o ogy, Vol.
56, pp. 555-564.
Zuckerman, M., Kernis, M. and Driver, R. (1984). Segmentation of behaviour: Effects of
actual deception and expected deception. ou a o e so a i y a Socia
syc o ogy, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 301-311. Bedard 1
i e a u e E iews
Thesis Professor: Jack Dui _hag
Thesis 4*::visor: Andy Hepburn
Researcher: At re Bedard
Algo II University College e a 2
Literature Reviews
Definition Of The Problem
e o em ei g soug ou wou e i a e so a i y y e suc as a i o e o a e a e wou co ce a e o s eci ic ece io cues w e a i i i ua was
ecei i g? e ques io i ge e a wou e, " o I o e s a E a e s use i e e ece io cues i e ec i g ece io ?" W e a i i i ua is ecei i g e o s e e s
o gi e ou sig a s w ic a e co o e a u co o a e. ese sig a s o cues wou
e o e am e s eec is u a ces a eye co ac . ecei e s e o make s a eme e o s w e ei message is o e ea se a eye co ac ecause ecei e s ook away w e ecei i g a o e e so . e i e e ces i e so a i y y es oi ou o i e e e i o me a s imu a io w ic wou e ocusse o y ei e e i o e o e e a e . y a u e i o e s a e a e s a e i e e i i o e e s a a ousa e e s w ic wou co c u e a ese sig i ica i e e ces wou accou o e ce a i a io o s eci ic ece io cues.
Rationale
W e I i s ega my i es iga io , I was i e es e i e e ec io o ece io a o y a guage. I a owe e ie o s u y o ece io cues a e so a i y y es.
A i s I a ac ua ece io i o e i my s u y, u oug e e si e esea c , I
ou ou a yi g was o a a ea wi muc success. ece io was o y ei g
e ec e a a o e c a ce accu acy i mos o my a ic es. O e a ic es i ei s u y wi w a ece io cues we e ei g ma i u a e y e ecei e i o e o e cei e Bedard 3 ei message as u u . K owi g is i o ma io a w a e mai ece io cues we e ei g mo i o e e mos a w ic we e ei g co o e y e ecei e . I cou
ow i c u e is as ec i my s u y. e e so a i y y e came i o ay w e I came ac oss a a ic e y . e au o a e au o ( 8 w ic ie o co ey a ce ai i i i ua s suc as sa es c e ks a use ca s sa esme we e o e e a yi g a
e ec i g ece io . is s u y ma e me associa e e so a i y y es a o g wi ece io cues. e e as ee a ai amou o i o ma io o ece io , owe e e esu s a
e mai as ec o ese s u ies we e e a i i y o e ec ece io . My s u y oes o i o e is a ocuses o e ece io cues. is a oac as o ee i es iga e i
io i es iga io s. My s u y i eg a es e so a i y i e e ces ei g e a e e a i o e e a ece io cues. e i e e ces e wee i o e e a e a e e is
oca e i e e icu a ac i a i g sys em i e ai . is sys em mo i o s i comi g
eu a im u ses esu i g om e i o me a s imu a io . e e i o me a s imu a io wou cause a e ci a io ocess o a i i i io ocess e e i g o e e so a i y
y e. ue o is i e e ce i e co ica a ousa e e cause y e e ci a io a i i i io ocess, e a e s a i o e s wou ocus o i e e e i o me a cues.
Description Of Grouped Research
o u y u e s a e ece io cues ei g use i e s u y, a e a o a e
ackg ou e a a io wi e ee e o ece io cues a e a i i y o e cc
ece io . A a ge amou o s u ies a e ee co uc e o e a i i y o e ec e a 4 ece io a e esu s a e emo s a e a e ec io is a ways e e e c a ce
e e . A s u y co uc e y . e au o a . e au o ( 8 i es iga e i o se e s cou e ec ece io y sa es e so s a y cus ome s wi a o e c a ce e e . e
esu s i ica e a e o se e s cou o isc imi a e e commu ica o s ece i e commu ica io s om ei u u o es. is is o e s u y w ic u e e e s e commo a o e c a ce e ec io e e y ica y o % a e e e cee i g 60%.
I o e o e ec ece io , o e mus k ow w a ece io cues o ook o a
ay a e io o. e ace ca e a a ua e sou ce o e i i i ua ca c i g a ie. e
ace ca s ow e s e g o e emo io ei g e . e acia musc es i e g ea y i
ei ease o co o . o e am e a s o a eous smi e ei g use i a ie, e c eeks wou mo e u a e musc es a ou e eyes ig e u , maki g a "c ow s ee ." e eyes mig e a o e i ica o o ece io . W e i i i ua s a e a ouse , e ci e , a g y o a ai , ei u i s i a e. eo e o o a e e a i i y o o u a y i a e ei
u i s. acia e essio s a e a ua sys em, o u a y a i o u a y.
Acco i g o Ekma , o e e eme y im o a c ue o w e e eo e a e e i g
e u is w e e ei acia e essio s a e symme ica o asymme ica . e oi s ou a (i o u a y e essio s o emo io a ake ( o u a y e essio s s ou i o e e y i e e eu a a ways. W e a e so is e essi g a ue o es ee i g,
e acia e essio s may e igge e y e owe , imi i e a eas o e ai w ic a e e ai s em a im ic sys em. W e e e so is g o ake some i g, e ce e a co e is i o e . ecause o ig a e e emis e es o e ai a e e a gui i g e ake emo io a e essio , e imi g is a i o a e e essio is a i
o si e . ue e essio s a e e a i e y symme ica a i si ce e e essio s a e o .
A o e cue o ook o i a ace w e a e so is yi g a e mic o e essio s.
e e m mic o e essio is w e a e so is " u i g o " a ace a e ake acia e essio is i e u e ow a e y a ee i g e essio a as s ess a a qua e o a seco . Mic o e essio s a e u ace emo io a e essio s a a e com esses i ime, as i g o y a ac io o ei usua u a io . ese mic o e essio s may o i e a mo e u ic u e o e co cea e emo io . I is e eme y i icu o ca u e ese mic o e essio s. ese is i c mo eme s ca o y e caug w e ey a e i me , s owe ow a e ami e . e imi g as ec is a e eme y im o a oo w e i comes o isc imi a i g
ece io . imi g i c u es o se , u a io a o se . e o se as ec is e amou o
ime i akes a acia e essio o a ea . u a io is e amou o ime i as s a o se is e amou o ime i akes o e e essio o isa ea . u i g e ee com o e s oge e ca o i e a ua e c ues o ece io . o o i e a e am e, i you o se e e e essio s a as mo e a i e seco s o mo e, ey a e ike y o e
a se.
ia s e o e ca e u a ou ei c oice o wo s. Wo s ecei e g ea a e io
ecause ey a e e ic es way o commu ica e. ia s k ow a ey wi e e mo e accou a e o ei wo s a o e sou o ei oice, acia e essio s OE o y mo eme s. Wo s a e easy o e ea se o e a o e agai w e e ecise a i g ca Bedard 6 e o e. e i o ma io gi e may o i e use u i o ma io i e ia was ca ie
away y emo io . A o e i ica o o ece i e ess wou e a i i ec e y a mo e i o ma io wou e gi e a w a is e ec e .
e o y e o ms ges u e s i s wi ou a y co scious ecisio . e a ges u es a eo e s ow a e o e ca e i us a o s. I us a o s ec ease w e a e so is a i g ou e eci i g w a o say. E e i e ia as wo ke ou a ac ice ei
i es, ei i us a o s may ec ease ecause o e i e e e ce o is o e emo io s.
e oice is e eme y im o a a is i o e wi s eec . e mos commo
oca cue o ece io a e e auses. e auses ca e oo o g o oo eque .
Sus icio o a ie may e a ouse w e e i i i ua esi a es a e s a o a s e. I g
a o u . oca cues o ece io occu ecause e i i i ua may o a e wo ke ou is o e i es a ea o ime o ecause ey i o e ec o ie a a a icu a mome a we e o e a e o ie. ig e ec io a e e sio may cause e
e a e ia o s um e o o ge ei i es. A c a ge i oice a e may e a sig o
ece io . Some i i i ua s s ow o sig o emo io i ei oice w ic a so aises e e ec io e e o ies.
ia s a so a e i icu y co cea i g ei ac io s w e yi g o i e a e emo io . e eyes c a ge i a ea a ce y e musc es su ou i g e eye a s. ese musc es mo i y e s a e o e eye i s a e o e a im essio . i ki g ca e o e
o u a y, u i is a i o u a y es o se w ic i c eases w e eo e a e emo io a y a ouse . e a 7 A study conducted by Bond, Kahler and Paolicelli (1984) showed that subjects showed a "demeanor bias" meaning that some looked honest even when they were lying; others looked dishonest even when they were telling the truth. In general this study demonstrated that liars used hand gestures, maintained eye contact and refrained from smiling. The more a behaviour was associated with deception, the less it was associated with perceived deception and that the subjects manipulated their behaviour with the common conceptions associated with deception. Liars affected the very behaviour that would make them look honest.
One major figure in leading the way with scientific studies concerning personality differences is Eysenck. With a great variety of laboratory experimental investigation
Eysenck defmes the typical extravert and the typical introvert which real people may approach to a greater or lesser degree. The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to, and does not like reading or studying by himself He craves excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment, and is generally an impulsive individual. He is fond of practical jokes, always has a ready answer, and generally likes to laugh and be merry. He prefers to keep moving and doing things, tends to be aggressive and lose his temper quickly; altogether his feelings are not kept under tight control, and he is not always a reliable person. The typical introvert is quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective, fond of books rather than people; he is reserved and distant except to intimate friends, he tends to plan ahcad, looks before he leaps and distrusts the impulse of the moment. He does not like excitement, e a 8 akes ma e s o e e y ay i e wi o e se ious ess, a ikes a we o e e mo e o
i e. e kee s is ee i gs u e c ose co o , se om e a es i a agg essi e ma e ,
a oes o ose is em e easi y. e is e ia e, somew a essimis ic, a aces g ea a ue o e ica s a a s.
Eyse ck e i es e asic i e e ces e wee e a e s a i o e s as
io ogica , i s oo e i e e icu a ac i a i g sys em o e ai . W a is sys em oes is mo i o i comi g eu a im u ses esu i g om e i o me a s imu a io . I o e s a e a e s a e i e e co ica a ousa e e s a ecause o is e ci a io a i i i io ocess a e a e s a i o e s wou ocus o i e e e i o me a s imu a io . e a io s a e ee os u a e a isco e e e wee e a e sio a co i io i g, ime u geme , ai a se so y e i a io o e a ce. E a e sio a se mo i o i g a e ee ou o e osi i e y co e a e . ( i ko is . Se mo i o i g is a e so a i y a ia e o se a a e i i i ua s w o a e ski e a mo i o i g
ei ow eac io s a i success u y maki g e im essio s ey wis o make i socia si ua io s. e com i a io o i e e co ica a ousa e e s i e a e s a i o e s a o g wi i e e e i o me a cues wou c ea y es a is a easo o accom is is i es iga io . Bedard 9
MLA 'a' ed Bibliography
Bond, C., Kahler, K. and Paolicelli, L. (1985). The miscommunication of deception: An adaptive perspective. ou a o E e ime a syc o ogy, 21, pp. 331-345.
Honest-looking subjects were predisposed to perceive others as dishonest while
viewing a deceptive or truthful video. In general liars used hand gestures,
maintained eye contact and refrained from smiling Perceivers misconstrued these
behaviours as signs of honesty and could not often detect deceit.
DePaulo, B. and DePaulo, P. (1989).Can deception by salesp ersons and customers be detected through nonverbal behaviour cues? ou a o A ie Socia syc o ogy, 18, pp.1552-1577.
The present study asked whether deception in sales communications by retail
salesperson and automobile customers could be detected nonverbally. The
nonverbal cues were not correlated with lying and subjects could not discriminate
the communicators' deceptive communications from their truthful ones.
Depaulo, B., Rosenthal, R. and Green, C. (1982). Diagnosing deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and nonverbal cues. ou a o E e ime a Socia syc o ogy,
18, 433-446.
The decoding of deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and nonverbal cues e a 0 o a e i iog a y
was e ami e . Su ec s e cei e e ece i e messages as sig i ica y mo e
am i a e , isc e a , ece i e, i i e e a ess e se a u e messages.
Su ec s i o e cei e e ece i e messages as a y mo e ece i e.
e au o, . a o s, C. ( 8 . E ec s o ac ua ece io a sus icious ess o
ece io o i e e so a e ce io s. ou a o e so a i y a Socia syc o ogy,
o . 4 , o. , 06 0 .
ime i e iewe s we e o mo e accu a e a ai e i e iews i e ec i g
ece io o i isce i g a ica s ue is osi io s. A ica s w o we e i e iewe y ime i e iewe s e somew a ess success u i ei a em s
o o ay ei i e e im essio s a ey e cei e ei i e iews as mo e ma i u a i e.
i e age, G., Ma o , . a i eau , M. ( 8 . ecog i io o isc e a o e a messages a e ec io o ece io . e ce ua a Mo o Ski s, 60, 2 .
e o e a isc e a cy es is a es o measu e e a i i y o e ec
isc e a cies i owe o a ec i e e a io s co eye ia isua a a a i guis ic
o e a c a e s. Co e a io s sugges a e sco e was o e a e o measu es Bedard 11
A I I otated BibliograrLy
of accuracy of discrimination between truthful and deceptive messages.
Stiff, J, Miller, G. and Sleight, C. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgment of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and social psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 555-564.
The study found that judgments in familiar situations were influenced by both
verbal and nonverbal cues. Situational factors influence information processing
and affect the relative importance of verbal and nonverbal cues in judgments of
veracity.
Zuckeiman, M., Kerths, M. and Driver, R. (1984). Segmentation of behaviour: Effects of actual deception and expected deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 301-311.
Subjects were asked to segment truthful and deceptive videos and rate their true
effective content. The results showed that in a controllable channel such as the
face, deceptive messages elicited a smaller number of segments than did truthful
messages. Deceptive messages elicited a greater number of segments. Subjects
informed about the deception generated a smaller number of segments. e a 2 e e e ces
o , C., Ka e , K. a ao ice i, . ( 8 . e miscommu ica io o ece io : A
a a i e e s ec i e. ou a o E e ime a syc o ogy, 2 , . 4 .
e au o, . a e au o, . ( 8 .Ca ece io y sa es e so s a cus ome s e
e ec e oug o e a e a iou cues? ou a o A ie Socia syc o ogy,
8, . 2 .
e au o, ., ose a , . a G ee , C. ( 82 . ia osi g ece i e a mi e
messages om e a a o e a cues. ou a o E e ime a Socia
syc o ogy, 8, 4 446.
e au o, . a o is, C. ( 8 . E ec s o ac ua ece io a sus icious ess o
ece io o i e e so a e ce io s. ou a o e so a i y a Socia
syc o ogy, o . 4 , o. , 06 0 .
i e age, G., Ma o , . a i eau , M. ( 8 . ecog i io o isc e a o e a
messages a e ec io o ece io . e ce ua a Mo o Ski s, 60, 2 . Bedard 13 e e e ces
Morris, L. W. (1979). Extraversion And Introversion, An Interactional Perspective.
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. New York, London.
Stiff, J., Miller, G. and Sleight, C. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in
judgment of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and social psychology, Vol.
56, pp. 555-564.
Zuckerman, M., Kernis, M. and Driver, R. (1984). Segmentation of behaviour: Effects of
actual deception and expected deception. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 301-311.