1 / 23

International Deception

International Deception. Charles F. Bond, Jr. Texas Christian University . International Deception. Behavior. Judgment. Belief. American and Jordanian Lies. 60 Americans 60 Jordanians English Arabic Lie about acquaintances. (Bond et al, 1990).

mostyn
Download Presentation

International Deception

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Deception Charles F. Bond, Jr. Texas Christian University

  2. International Deception Behavior Judgment Belief

  3. American and Jordanian Lies 60 Americans60 JordaniansEnglish Arabic Lie about acquaintances (Bond et al, 1990)

  4. American and Jordanian Behavior Eye Contact Head Movements

  5. Judgments across 3 Nations (Bond & Atoum, 2000) Liars U.S. Jordan India U.S. Jordan India Judges

  6. Three Nations, Three Modalities Audio U.S. Jordan India Video AV

  7. Accuracy of Lie Detection % Correct Judgments Audio Video AV Audio Video AV Own Nation Other Nation

  8. Perceived Honesty % Truth Judgments Audio Video AV Audio Video AV Own Nation Other Nation

  9. Beliefs about Deception (Global Deception Research Team, In progress) • 75 nations • 4800 residents • 42 languages

  10. Beliefs in 75 Nations

  11. How can you tell? Eyes Nervous Incoherent Move Body Inconsistent % of Respondents

  12. How can you tell? Differing Beliefs about Eye Contact % of respondents

  13. Questions about Behaviors More eye contact Less eye contact Neither More shifting Less shifting Neither More self-touching Less self-touching Neither Longer stories Shorter stories Neither % Responses

  14. More eye contact when lying?

  15. How many per week? Taiwan Portugal . . . USA . . . Pakistan Algeria

  16. How many per week?

  17. How many do you detect? % Detected Sweden Norway . . . USA . . . Armenia Turkey

  18. How many do you detect?

  19. How many of yours succeed? % Detected Moldova Botswana . . . USA . . . Argentina Chile

  20. How many of yours succeed? % Not Detected

  21. Acknowledgements Algeria R. Messili Argentina S. Tifner Armenia H. Datevyan Australia K. Williams Austria M. Voracek Belgium B. Rimé Bolivia M. Schulmeyer Botswana M. Munyae Brazil M. Pereira Burkina faso D. Donatien Cameroon T. Tchombe Canada K. Lee Chile M. Koljatic China Y. Zhang Colombia O. Rodriguez Croatia I. Sverko Cyprus A. Kapardis Czech Rep. I. Stuchlikova Domin. Rep. C. Matuk Egypt R. Ahmed Estonia T. Aavik Finland M. Niemi France P. Banton Georgia G. Nizharadze Germany G. Koehnken Ghana S. Reynolds Pakistan F. Ahmad Paraguay M. Basualdo Peru D. Herrera Phillipines C. Conaco Poland B. Pawlowski Portugal F. Neto Romania I. Roxana Russia D. Khalturina Samoa M. Kerslake Serbia A. Kostik Slovakia L. Lovas Slovenia V. Rus South Africa C. Tredoux Spain J. Masip Sri Lanka R. Gunawardhane Swaziland P. Mngadi Sweden M. Hartwig Switerland R. Wright Taiwan T. Huang Togo V. Talwar TrinidadTobago D. Chadee Turkey M. Ker-Dincer U.A.E. M. Abu-Hilal United Kingdom A. Vrij U.S.A. S. Rao Greece F. Kukkinaki India V. Giri Indonesia N. Hasanat Iran H. Bahrami Ireland J. Horgan Israel J. Kurman Italy L. Caso Japan T. Oka Jordan A. Atoum Kenya R. Rono Korea H. Han Kuwait R. Ahmed Lithuania R. Simulioniene Malaysia R. Ismail Malta R. Holland Mauritius U. Bhowon Mexico C. Benjet Micronesia R. Churney Moldova C. Platon Morocco A. Ghayur Nepal S. Niraula Netherlands H. Merckelbach New Zealand L. Johnston Norway A. Melinder

  22. Best Cues for Lie Detection (DePaulo et al, 2003) Audible distancing Ambivalence Lack of detail Uncertainty 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage Accuracy

  23. (Bond & DePaulo, In progress) Mean % Correct

More Related