CHAPTER II

THE SCIENCE OF DECEPTION AND ITS DETECTION

HISTORY AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY OF DECEPTION

Lies have fascinated people since ancient times. Countless tales and myths center around liars
and the fates that befall them. Perhaps most famous in Western thought is the pivotal role deception
plays in the Biblical story of Adam and Eve: The serpent uses deception to entice Eve to commit the
original sin, leading God to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. In literature, Pinocchio1
and Baron Munchausen2 are iconic examples of prolific liars. Aesop’s classic fable about the boy who
cried wolf also centers on the telling of falsehood and the consequences of such conduct. In folklore,
deception is typically depicted as sinful and oftentimes carries a penalty. This notion has important
consequences for the detection of deception. Deception has been an area of academic interest since the
dawn of the Western intellectual tradition. Early Greek philosophers pondered the nature of lying,
primarily from a moral perspective. Both Plato and Aristotle discussed the virtues of lying and truth
telling within their larger frameworks of ethics. The moral status of deception has continued to be a
topic of vigorous scholarly debate through the centuries.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON DECEPTION

Emotional Theory

The emotional theory according to Ekman and Friesen (1969) is one of the first comprehensive
psychological theories of deception was outlined by their work is anchored in theories of emotion,
which is reflected in their approach to deception. In their view, deception is accompanied by emotional
processes—in general, such negative emotions as guilt (about the act the liar is trying to cover up and
possibly about the act of lying itself), fear (that her lie might be uncovered), and anxiety. On the other
hand, Ekman (2009) reported that positive emotions are also possible; liars may occasionally experience
glee at the prospect of fooling someone (an emotion he refers to as duping delight).

Cognitive Load Theory

Zuckerman, DePaulo, and Rosenthal (1981) stated that lying might be a more cognitively taxing
task than telling the truth; that is, lying is more mentally demanding. This view, which is often referred
to as cognitive load theory, has attracted significant attention in the last decade, during which the
original ideas proposed by Zuckerman et al. have been fleshed out, in particular by Vrij, Granhag, Mann,
and Leal (2011).
Vrij et al. (2011) outlined a number of reasons that lying might be more cognitively effortful than
telling the truth:
1. Need for a plausible story. In contrast to truth tellers, who simply recall a story from memory,
liars must invent a story that serves as a credible alternative to the truth, which might be challenging on
several levels. A liar’s story must be detailed enough that it has the superficial characteristics of a real
event but not any details the lie-catchers know to be false. It must be a story that the liar can repeat
without inconsistencies if asked to do so.
2. Need for credibility. Liars are less likely to take their credibility for granted than truth tellers,
and they are thus more prone to control their behavior in such a way that they appear credible (e.g.,
making sure their body language does not give away their lie). Such self-monitoring also involves
mental effort.
 3. Need for acceptance. Because liars are less likely to take their credibility for granted, they are
probably more likely to pay attention to the receiver of the lie in search of feedback about whether their
lie appears to go undetected.
4. Need for focus. Liars may have to expend cognitive resources in order to remind themselves of
the task of maintaining a credible demeanor.
5. Need for suppression. Lying requires actively suppressing the truth, which requires executive
control (which, in turn, involves cognitive load).

Self-Presentational Perspective on Deception

Erving Goffman (1959) published his seminal theory of human social interaction: The Presentation
of Self in Everyday Life. His theory is based on the metaphor of life as theater, with people behaving
like actors on a stage. Goffman suggested that people are typically motivated to control the impressions
others have of them, in order to come across in desirable ways.
What is desirable in one setting, however, might not be desirable in another. Thus, people need to
play different roles depending on the social context. They strategically emphasize certain elements of
themselves and downplay others depending on what impressions they want to make. For example,
during a job interview, a person likely attempts to convey reliability and competence. During a dinner
with new friends, a person will try to present herself as sociable, pleasant, and charming. A college
student interacting with a professor probably wants to be seen as hard working and ambitious, while he
might want his friends to perceive him as fun loving and outgoing.
All these attempts at impression management are examples of self-presentation—people’s attempts
to reach social goals by editing or grooming their behavior using both verbal and nonverbal means.
Self-presentation is not equivalent to self-promotion or boasting because some situations call for
modesty and humility. In such situations, people might downplay their skills in order to not violate the
social norms (DePaulo 1992).
Self-presentational theory is not a theory about deception. However, it paints a picture of human
behavior as a deliberate, strategic product. Our social behavior is not raw. We constantly filter and edit
ourselves. We highlight and downplay various aspects of ourselves when interacting with others in
order to reach certain goals

CONTEMPORARY THEORIES IN POLYGRAPH TESTING

Analytic Theory
The analytic theory of polygraph testing holds that greater changes in physiological
activity are loaded at different types of stimuli as a function of deception and truth-telling in
response to relevant target stimuli (Nelson, 2016). This theory suggests that humans generate
recordable physiological reactions to questions relevant to investigation targets (Handler
2018). It is presumed that every subject wants to pass the polygraph test and the desire of
passing the test is influenced by the test questions presented. Test questions that require greater
cognitive load, will produce the largest physiological response. Reactions to the relevant
question are also influenced by emotional and conditioning factors (Handler, 2018).

Deferential Salience Theory

Differential salience has been suggested as a more general and frugal psychological
theory that is more consistent with the field of scientific psychology, including emotion,
cognition, and conditioned learning as a basis of response to polygraph questions (Senter,
Weatherman, Krapohl & Horvath, 2010). It describes the relationship between the level of
psychological importance and intensity of the physiological response. This concept suggests
that responsivity can divulge underlying mental processes that can be utilized as a basis to
detect deception or recognition during the polygraph examination. Differential salience does
not restrict the operating mechanism to fear but assumes a common pathway for the
physiological expression of those cognitive and emotional processes that gave rise to the
psychological salience. (Krapohl, Handler & Sturn, 2012).

Cognitive-behavioral Theory
The cognitive-behavioral theory of polygraph testing is another model that explains the
variety of known physiological phenomena observed during polygraph testing. Cognition,
emotion, and behavioural/experiential learning serves as a basis of physiological responses
(Khan, Nelson & Handler, 2009). The cognitive-behavioural theory is consistent with the
differential salience model (Handler & Nelson, 2007; Senter et al., 2010). It suggests that truth-
telling requires simple cognitive and emotional task demands that deception.

OTHER THEORIES OF POLYGRAPH TESTING

Psychological Set
The expression psychological set was introduced in the polygraph by Cleve Backster.
He made the concept as a foundation of his Zone Comparison Technique which he associated
concept to fear of detection, it is assumed that examinees focus their fears, anxieties, and
apprehensions on the questions which pose the greatest threat to their self-preservation and
well-being. A guilty person will experience fear of detection which consequently causes a
greater reaction to the questions relevant to the issue being tested. Adversely, a truthful person
will focus fear on the comparison questions (Krapohl, Handler & Sturn, 2012). This theory was
however does not support the effectiveness of Directed Lie Comparison questions where fear
of detection was not present because of the permission on the examinee to give a lying answer
on the DLC questions. According to Handler, the term psychological set was “made up” and
there is no such thing.

The Fight-or-Flight Response

The most common explanation of the causes of physiological phenomena observed
during polygraph examination is the fight, flight, or freeze response. The term was first
described by Walter Cannon in 1959. It was assumed that the activation of the sympathetic
nervous system (SNS) influenced the distribution of blood on certain parts of the where it is
most needed during an emergency. The Fight or Flight response is a primitive, autonomic,
inborn response of our body to a perceived attack, harm, or threat. According to Handler, the
fight or flight theory an outdated term and does not explain the complete range of responses
during psychophysiological detection of deception test. It is no longer taught in polygraph
school.

The Orienting Response

Pavlov (1927) described as the orienting reflex. It is a behavioral response expected to
occur as a result of an altered, novel, or sudden stimulus. The series of questions asked during
polygraph examination does not start with a relevant question, to ensure that orienting response
on the test questions will not be confused as a deceptive reaction.
Arousal Theory
This theory suggests that polygraph questions have different inherent cognitive and or
emotional effects for every test subject. The guilty and innocent examinee can be determined
by evaluating which question has a greater response as influenced by behavioral conditioning.

Conditional Response Theory

This theory holds that physiological reaction is associated with an emotional response
caused by the conditioned stimulus. A polygraph question connected with strong emotions
produces a larger response. The degree of physiological response is associated with the
personal significance of questions presented during the test. However, this theory is not
considered as the prevailing explanation for polygraph examination. In 2003, the National
Research Council commented that truthful examinee may be affected by the type of relevant
questions concerning the case of a murdered relative.

Conflict Theory
According to this theory, the tendency of a polygraph subject to give a conflicting
answer causes physiological arousal. It was assumed that the greater the conflict, the larger the
response that is expected. This theory suggests that psychopaths have not produced a larger
response compared to non-psychopaths. However, there is no clear explanation on the presence
of reaction when the examinee provides a truthful answer or is not required to answer the
questions.

Threat of Punishment Theory

This theory holds that the cause of physiological arousal during deception is influenced
by fear of the consequences if detected. Polygraph subject that is in fear of being caught on his
lie will produce greater physiological responses because of the negative consequences.
However, this theory fails to explain why polygraph testing still functions well in the absence
of fear. In 2003, the National Research Council suggested that the fear of innocent subject of
not being believe for their truthful answer could also cause a strong physiological reactions.
According to Handler, all tests have error rates. The suggestions that a threat could cause an
innocent person to fail in an untested hypothesis.