DETECTING DECEPTION

To summaries the first two articles topic area Deception may be suggested that both articles are concerned with the investigation of deception from the view point of the verbal and nonverbal reasoning. Their aim is to find predominantly nonverbal cues to when people are telling the truth and when people act in a deceptive manner. They both were found to more or less lack of stance validity
Article three however; “Outsmarting the Liars” was chosen as it was more recent; it was corresponding well to the previous two articles topic, but in the same time was offering ultimate solution and entirely new approach to the topic. It was also offering different and new modern continuation of the topic and was moreover offering solutions that work and were based on real life outsets to an extent. Further it was a practical solution to the outstanding unresolved problems of the research on detecting deception. Another reason was that the authors were well known authorities in the research field of deception and they use the most recent research done in the field by others as well as their own.
The Methodology used by the first two articles is using controlled experiment and collecting primary data. Both of them rely highly on previous research and are aiming to fill gaps in further research, to minimise limitations and to find solutions to limitation that cannot be overcome until that point.
In comparison the three articles are conducted as experiments in which primary data was collected. They are all controlled experiments, which mean that there have been a certain scenarios involved and pre-set role-play was involved. However they all differ in methods of conduction. And further the third article is not limited by scenarios and use real life outset and examples.
The first experiment Stormwall et al. (2007) have been conducted in a University Laboratory Setting where a scenario was followed by all participants. The findings were very similar to previous research and did not make any distinction between deceivers and truth tellers. Also findings showed that police staff did not differ from any other ordinary person in finding verbal and non-verbal cues of deception.
However some important discoveries were made that moved the canter of the research from the participants’ and focused on the setting of the experiment, gave some ideas for how further research could be conducted and moved the importance somewhat to the interviewers as well. Variables found were length of interrogation, strategies of liars, strategies used by truth tellers, gender age rate was also accounted, degree of nervousness, degree of motivation, degree of planning.
Important findings that emerged are verbal reasoning, strategies. Instrumental lying and identity relevant lying emerged in connection to motivation. However no significant differences were found between liars and truth tellers’ non-verbal and verbal behaviours.
The Second research experiment was conducted by Mann et al. (2004) and moved the focus on the police staff. It was less controlled and used videos instead of mock scenes. Variables were based mainly on accuracy and co-relation of accuracy with the other variables such as experience, length of service, gender, age and strategy. Based on previous research the conclusion was made that the correlations between the variables are not strongly correlated, but the significant findings were that manuals that exist and police staff are trained by make detecting deception chances less than the chance level of 50%. However important positive correlation was made between accuracy in detecting deception and experience in interviewing suspects. So it appeared that although well-known stereotypes of detecting deception make detecting deception even worst, experienced police staff can make accurate decisions and guess wright if someone is telling the truth or lie although that this guesses are close to the 50% chance level. In that sense the findings were similar to those in Stormwall et al. (2007).
In the third article by Vrij et al. (2011) completely new conception was used to conduct the experiment. No rules were set to interviewers and to interviewees, no pre-sets were made. Here the authors have focused on the cognitive. Combining the experience of vast amount of previous research and experiments the authors have furthered the research and have abandoned the idea of the verbal and nonverbal cues of deception, because in their opinion based on previous research and experiments; the last five decades of research on deception have shown that humans ability to detect lie is limited. Especially when talking about detecting deception merely on verbal and nonverbal cues. The approaches they used were mainly two and they aimed to complicate interviews and to create strategic questioning or examination that would be elicit so would be able to produce greater differentiation between truth and lies.
The experience Vrij et al. (2011) used were that “diagnostic” cues, success training programs and verbal and non-verbal cues do not gain the accuracy desired to prove they definitely work. Vrij et al. (2011) argues that although those past experiences have been concentrated on emotions and emotional amplification and verbal and nonverbal cues have shown to be similar for both liars and truth tellers the approach have to take turn to the cognitive load.
In this study a strategic questioning approach was in which the responses of truth tellers and liars’ shows significant success and very clear distinction can be made between the responses of liars and truth tellers. The study focuses mainly on the distinguishing between truth tellers and liars, and shows good rates in accuracy which is significantly higher than the chance rate of 50%. Based on the cognitive load approach and questions the accuracy rates were 75% in detecting truth tellers and 78% in detecting deception.
The Study also includes “The Strategic Use of Evidence” which showed 80% accuracy in detecting deception when the agents were trained. The rate for untrained agents was similarly to the other researches close to the chance level. Here other technics were commented such as “The Devil’s advocates question” which emerged from a study in deception where the example of soldiers died in Taliban attack where they were tricked to believe that the enemy is friend. This tactic shows 75% accuracy rate.
To evaluate the studies have different research backgrounds, they use different methodologies and the variety of participants and ways the researches were conducted varies. The first two however shows similar findings although the controlled settings were changed and the strategies were changed. From all of the researches different variables emerge different questions for further research emerges.
To conclude all three of the researches make attempt to find solutions of problems emerging from previous experiments and research in a field which is intriguing. Gaining knowledge and being able to prove what actually work is the main aim and all the researches shows different evolutionary was of achieving the goals of detecting deception.

Bibliography:
Mann, S., Vrij, A. & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police Officers’ ability to
Detect suspects’ lies. Journal Applied Psychology, 89(1), 137 – 149.

Strömwall, L., Hartwig, M. & Granhag, P.A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal
Behaviour and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime and Law,
12(2), 207 – 219.
Vaij, A., Granhag, P.A., Mann, S., Leal, S., (2011). Outsmarting the Liars: Toward a Cognitive Lie Deception Approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2011, SAGE 20-28,