Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Deception”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1992

Out of sight or out of mind? Another look at deception in autism.

The penny-hiding game is a deception game that occurs naturally in parent-child and child-child interaction. It involves minimal linguistic demands, and is lots of fun. Oswald and Ollendick (1989) employed it with subjects with autism and reported an impaired capacity for deception. They also found that this correlated with performance on both a false belief ("theory of mind") test as well as various measures of social behaviour. The experiment reported here set out to replicate Oswald and Ollendick's important results, and then extend them by using a new technique for error analysis. We succeeded in replicating the autism-specific deception impairment as well as the finding that deception capacity correlates highly with performance on a false belief test. In addition, the new analytic technique discriminated the group with autism from controls more clearly than the traditional index of deception. Specifically, subjects with autism, whilst fully capable of enjoying the game as a game of object occlusion (keeping things out of sight), failed to perceive the game as a game of information occlusion (keeping things out of mind), unlike normal children or subjects with a mental handicap of an equivalent or lower mental age. The dissociation in autism between occluding objects vs occluding information is discussed in relation to other research showing that subjects with autism are impaired in understanding the principle that "seeing leads to knowing".

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Hazard of deceptive advertising of athletic footwear.

OBJECTIVES: Athletic footwear are associated with frequent injury that are thought to result from repetitive impact. No scientific data suggest they protect well. Expensive athletic shoes are deceptively advertised to safeguard well through "cushioning impact", yet account for 123% greater injury frequency than the cheapest ones. This study tested the hypothesis that deceptive advertising creates a false sense of security with users of expensive athletic shoes, inducing attenuation of impact moderating behaviour, increased impact, and injury. METHODS: Fifteen young healthy male volunteers confronted four surfaces: a bare force moment platform, and three with this platform covered by identical shoe sole material made to appear different and advertised divergently. Advertising messages suggested superior impact absorption and protection (deceptive message), poor impact absorption and high injury risk (warning message), and unknown impact absorption and safety (neutral message). Ground reaction forces were recorded for 10 barefoot footfalls, according to a protocol requiring stepping forward from perch to a surface 4.5 cm below. RESULTS: Impact varied as a function of advertising message (p < 0.001). Deceptive message equalled neutral message in eliciting higher impact than the warning message and the bare platform. Differences grew with repetitions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a plausible mechanism explaining higher injury frequency in users of expensive athletic shoes. This is the first report to suggest: (1) deceptive advertising of protective devices may represent a public health hazard and may have to be eliminated presumably through regulation; (2) a tendency in humans to be less cautious when using new devices of unknown benefit because of overly positive attitudes associated with new technology and novel devices.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

The use of deception in nursing.

Arguments about the morality of the use of deception in patient care have been conducted largely in an empirical vacuum, with few data about the situations in which deception occurs. Do staff frequently deceive their patients and, if so, under what conditions? Can the consequences of deception always be foreseen? What justifications do staff use to explain their behaviour? The small-scale study reported here on the uses of deception by nurses when attempting to reassure patients provides information on these questions. The results suggest that deception can have deleterious effects on trust and increase the emotional distance between patients and staff.

Beneficence↗
PubMed2004

Physicians' interactions with third-party payers: is deception necessary?

Published reports indicate that physicians sometimes use deceptive tactics with third-party payers. Many physicians appear to be willing to deceive to secure care that they perceive as necessary, particularly when illnesses are severe and appeals procedures for care denials are burdensome. Physicians whose practices include larger numbers of Medicaid or managed care patients seem more willing to deceive third-party payers than are other physicians. The use of deception has important implications for physician professionalism, patient trust, and rational health policy development. If deception is as widespread as these studies suggest, there may be serious problems in the medical profession and the health care financing systems at the interface between physicians and third-party payers. Deception may be a symptom of a flawed system, in which physicians are asked to implement financing policies that conflict with their primary obligation to the patient.

Deception↗
PubMed2005

Behavioral cues to deception vs. topic incriminating potential in criminal confessions.

Coding statements of criminal suspects facilitated tests of four hypotheses about differences between behavioral cues to deception and the incriminating potential (IP) of the topic. Information from criminal investigations corroborated the veracity of 337 brief utterances from 28 videotaped confessions. A four-point rating of topic IP measured the degree of potential threat per utterance. Cues discriminating true vs. false comprised word/phrase repeats, speech disfluency spikes, nonverbal overdone, and protracted headshaking. Non-lexical sounds discriminated true vs. false in the reverse direction. Cues that distinguished IP only comprised speech speed, gesticulation amount, nonverbal animation level, soft weak vocal and "I (or we) just" qualifier. Adding "I don't know" to an answer discriminated both IP and true vs. false. The results supported hypothesis about differentiating deception cues from incriminating potential cues in high-stakes interviews, and suggested that extensive research on distinctions between stress-related cues and cues to deception would improve deception detection.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Psychopathy and nonverbal indicators of deception in offenders.

The current study examined psychopathy and nonverbal indicators of deception in an incarcerated sample. Nonverbal behaviors were coded from videotapes of 45 male offenders telling true and fabricated stories about crimes. Interpersonal features of psychopathy were associated with inflated views of lying ability, verbosity, and increases in blinking, illustrator use, and speech hesitations. While lying, the more psychopathic offenders spoke faster and demonstrated increases in blinking and head movements. Indicators of deception in offenders were somewhat different from those typically observed in non-offender populations. These findings indicate that personality factors may have an impact on nonverbal indicators of deception in criminal justice settings where the detection of deception is of utmost concern.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Detecting deception in children's testimony: factfinders' abilities to reach the truth in open court and closed-circuit trials.

This study examined the influence of closed-circuit television (CCTV) on jurors' abilities to detect deception in children's testimony. Children ages 7-9 individually played games and made a video movie with a male confederate. In the guilty condition, stickers were placed on exposed body parts (i.e., the child's arm, toes, and bellybutton). In the not-guilty and deception conditions, stickers were placed on the child's clothing rather than on bare skin. Approximately 3 weeks later, mock jurors recruited from the community viewed child participants testify either in a traditional courtroom setting or via one-way CCTV. The mock jurors responded to questions about the child witness and the defendant as well as deliberated to reach a verdict. Children in the deception condition were asked to testify as if the stickers had been placed on exposed body parts rather than on their clothing. Predeliberation, jurors were less likely to convict when a child testified in the deception condition as opposed to the guilty condition. These differences disappeared following deliberation. There was no support for the notion that jurors reach the truth better when children testify in open court versus via CCTV. Implications for jurors' abilities to reach the truth are discussed.

Child↗
PubMed1997

Pointing, withholding information, and deception in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella).

Brown capuchin monkeys, like 4-year-old children and human-socialized chimpanzees, showed communicative and deceptive pointing in experiments in which they benefited by indicating, accurately or falsely, the location of hidden food. All 3 capuchin monkeys tested (13, 19, and 26 years old) pointed communicatively in the presence of a cooperative trainer. One human-reared monkey pointed without any training and frequently gazed at her human respondent; as with apes, extensive exposure to humans may promote some human-like responses in monkeys. Another capuchin withheld pointing when beneficial, whereas the 3rd learned to obtain the hidden food by pointing deceptively in the presence of a competitive trainer. Such deceptive pointing by one monkey and withholding of information by another suggest that primates' deceptive pointing in an experimental situation is explainable in terms of response inhibition and conditional discrimination learning.

Animals↗
PubMed1998

Managing the outcomes of discovered deception.

This study analyzed strategies individuals use to manage the discovery of deception in a relationship. A sample of 210 participants completed questionnaires detailing their use of repair strategies subsequent to deception. Findings showed that the use of repair strategies differed across relational types and that the use of prosocial relational repair strategies was positively correlated with the target's increase in trust for the deceiver, the target's expressions of affection for the deceiver, and relational intimacy. Relational satisfaction was positively correlated with the tendency to use prosocial strategies. The deceiver's message selection was partially constrained by perceptions of the target's attributions concerning the relational significance of the deception; prosocial strategies were correlated with the deceiver's belief that the target attributed relational significance to the deceptive act.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Dissociable roles of prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices in deception.

Recent neuroimaging studies have shown the importance of the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices in deception. However, little is known about the role of each of these regions during deception. Using positron emission tomography (PET), we measured brain activation while participants told truths or lies about two types of real-world events: experienced and unexperienced. The imaging data revealed that activity of the dorsolateral, ventrolateral and medial prefrontal cortices was commonly associated with both types of deception (pretending to know and pretending not to know), whereas activity of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was only associated with pretending not to know. Regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) increase in the ACC was positively correlated with that in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex only during pretending not to know. These results suggest that the lateral and medial prefrontal cortices have general roles in deception, whereas the ACC contributes specifically to pretending not to know.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Detecting deception in facial expressions of pain: accuracy and training.

Clinicians tend to assign greater weight to nonverbal expression than to patient self-report when judging the location and severity of pain. However, patients can be successful at dissimulating facial expressions of pain, as posed expressions resemble genuine expressions in the frequency and intensity of pain-related facial actions. The present research examined individual differences in the ability to discriminate genuine and deceptive facial pain displays and whether different models of training in cues to deception would improve detection skills. Judges (60 male, 60 female) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental groups: 1) control; 2) corrective feedback; 3) deception training; and 4) deception training plus feedback. Judges were shown 4 videotaped facial expressions for each chronic pain patient: neutral expressions, genuine pain instigated by physiotherapy range of motion assessment, masked pain, and faked pain. For each condition, the participants rated pain intensity and unpleasantness, decided which category each of the 4 video clips represented, and described cues they used to arrive at decisions. There were significant individual differences in accuracy, with females more accurate than males, but accuracy was unrelated to past pain experience, empathy, or the number or type of facial cues used. Immediate corrective feedback led to significant improvements in participants' detection accuracy, whereas there was no support for the use of an information-based training program.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Ethics, deception, and 'Those Milgram experiments'.

Critics who allege that deception in psychology experiments is unjustified frequently cite Stanley Milgram's 'obedience experiments' as evidence. These critics say that arguments for justification tend to downplay the risks involved and overstate the benefits from such research. Milgram, they add, committed both sins. Critics are right to point out that research oversight is often susceptible to self-serving abuse. But stating a priori how beneficial a given experiment will be is a tall order for psychologists, or anyone else. At the same time, critics themselves have difficulty in showing what is wrong with deception, and how subjects in these experiments suffer. Hence, it becomes unclear what the psychologists, including Milgram, are prone to downplay. There is also room to wonder how the Milgram studies can illuminate the debate over deception. Although Milgram probably exaggerated the scientific significance of his own work, critics who exaggerate its moral and historical significance do little to clarify the status of deception.

Behavioral Research↗
PubMed1997

Children's understanding of epistemic conduct in self-deception and other false belief stories.

In self-deception persons accept false beliefs through a motivated disregard for countervailing evidence. Such epistemic misconduct renders them responsible for their own deception. It was hypothesized that children's understanding of this responsibility would be associated with an understanding of how evidence informs belief. In the study 4- to 9-year-old children's understanding of the relations between false belief, evidence, and epistemic responsibility was examined using stories involving self-deception, lying, and misleading appearances. Results indicated that younger children who understood false belief understood simpler types of deception, but that understanding self-deceivers' epistemic responsibility was limited to older children who understood the relevance of evidence to belief formation.

Awareness↗
PubMed2004

A pilot study of functional magnetic resonance imaging brain correlates of deception in healthy young men.

We hypothesized that specific brain regions would activate during deception, and these areas would correlate with changes in electrodermal activity (EDA). Eight men were asked to find money hidden under various objects. While functional MRI images were acquired and EDA was recorded, the subjects gave both truthful and deceptive answers regarding the money's location. The group analysis revealed significant activation during deception in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFCx) and anterior cingulate (AC), but individual results were not consistent. Individually and as a group, EDA correlated with blood flow changes in the OFCx and AC. Specific brain regions were activated during deception, but the present technique lacks good predictive power for individuals.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1991

A confederate's perspective on deception.

In this article, I outline my position regarding the use of deception in psychology experiments, based on my experience as a confederate. I describe an experiment I participated in and the problems resulting from the study: subjects' differing responses to the deception; angry reactions of some subjects to the experiment; and the general discomfort of both the subjects and the confederates, in particular, who had their doubts concerning the external validity of the study and the ethics involved in running it. Issues of informed consent and debriefing are also addressed; it is argued that the success of deception depends on the subject being misinformed as to the experiment's true nature and that debriefing itself sometimes angers subjects. I encourage a decrease in the use of deception and the reexamination of a system that attempts to balance the pain of experimental participants with anticipated benefit to scientific knowledge.

Behavioral Research↗
PubMed1997

The rise and fall of deception in social psychology and personality research, 1921 to 1994.

The frequency of the use of deception in American psychological research was studied by reviewing articles from journals in personality and social psychology from 1921 to 1994. Deception was used rarely during the developmental years of social psychology into the 1930s, then grew gradually and irregularly until the 1950s. Between the 1950s and 1970s the use of deception increased significantly. This increase is attributed to changes in experimental methods, the popularity of realistic impact experiments, and the influence of cognitive dissonance theory. Since 1980 there appears to have been a decrease in the use of deception as compared to previous decades which is related to changes in theory, methods, ethical standards, and federal regulation of research.

Attitude↗
PubMed2001

Overcoming truth telling as an obstacle to initiating safer sex: clients and health practitioners planning deception during HIV test counseling.

This article considers how deception, as a strategy for handling delicate interpersonal situations, is raised and responded to during HIV pretest counseling sessions. Two cases are presented in which clients (CLs) formulate extrarelational sexual encounters as potential obstacles to initiating safer sex practices with long-term relational partners (because reinitiating safer sex with such partners would entail admission of the extrarelational encounters). Close analysis of spoken interaction reveals that CLs display their resistance to initiating safer sex by animating, through hypothetical dialogue, their long-term partners' requests for explanation of the disruption in their usual intimate behaviors; health practitioners attempt to overcome this obstacle of "truth telling" by suggesting deception in its place. This study extends current understandings of the formulation and planning of deceptive messages in the course of actual health promotion interactions. The implications of this investigation suggest that deception may pose a viable, albeit controversial, option when promoting disease prevention behaviors, especially in delicate interpersonal interactions such as not wanting to admit an extrarelational affair.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Accuracy of deception judgments.

We analyze the accuracy of deception judgments, synthesizing research results from 206 documents and 24,483 judges. In relevant studies, people attempt to discriminate lies from truths in real time with no special aids or training. In these circumstances, people achieve an average of 54% correct lie-truth judgments, correctly classifying 47% of lies as deceptive and 61% of truths as nondeceptive. Relative to cross-judge differences in accuracy, mean lie-truth discrimination abilities are nontrivial, with a mean accuracy d of roughly .40. This produces an effect that is at roughly the 60th percentile in size, relative to others that have been meta-analyzed by social psychologists. Alternative indexes of lie-truth discrimination accuracy correlate highly with percentage correct, and rates of lie detection vary little from study to study. Our meta-analyses reveal that people are more accurate in judging audible than visible lies, that people appear deceptive when motivated to be believed, and that individuals regard their interaction partners as honest. We propose that people judge others' deceptions more harshly than their own and that this double standard in evaluating deceit can explain much of the accumulated literature.

Deception↗