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? oy si uegauaes om Agoma Uiesiy Coege wee ese wi e Eyseck esoaiy Quesioaie. e suecs iewe a ieo ecoig o eceie o uu ieos coaiig quesios eaiig o occuaio, ea, esoa accomismes, oies a iesye. uig a ause ae eac ieo a quesioaie was gie. e aicias wee equese o ae e uuess o e ieiewee, a aske o ae e ie cues o ei ecisio. I is suy eceio cues suc as seec eo, ieo ieiew coe, se maiuaio, a gesues, eye coac, oe o oice, seec isuaces, osua sis a smie uaio wee eae o eie ioee o eaee esoaiy caaceisics. e esus iicae a ee wee o ieeces ewee eaes a ioes i eie esimaes o uuess o cue imoace. 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_.icias 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. ?sus 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 eeeces o, C., Koe, K. a aoicei, . (8. e miscommuicaio o eceio: A aaie esecie. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, . 4. eauo, . a eauo, . (8.Ca eceio y saesesos a cusomes e eece oug oea eaiou cues? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, .2. eauo, ., osea, . a Gee, C. (82. iagosig eceie a mie messages om ea a oea cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 4446. eauo, . a ois, C. (8. Eecs o acua eceio a susiciousess o eceio o ieesoa eceios. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, o. 4, o. , 060. ieage, G., Mao, . a ieau, M. (8. ecogiio o iscea oea messages a eecio o eceio. 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. oua o esoaiy a socia sycoogy, Vol. 56, pp. 555-564. Zuckerman, M., Kernis, M. and Driver, R. (1984). Segmentation of behaviour: Effects of actual deception and expected deception. oua o esoaiy a Socia sycoogy, Vol. 46, No.