Judee Burgoon: Effects of Motivation and Modality on Nonverbal and Verbal Behaviors and Detection Accuracy: Performance Impairment or Facilitation?

Duration: 18 mins 47 secs

Share this media item:

Embed this media item:

<iframe width="_width_" height="_height_" src="https://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2077258/embed" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Choose size:

About this item

Available Formats

About this item

Description:	(No description)


Created:	2015-09-28 16:27
Collection:	Decepticon 2015
Publisher:	University of Cambridge
Copyright:	Dr S. Van der Zee
Language:	eng (English)
Keywords:	Deception;


Abstract:	The motivation impairment effect (MIE) claims that motivation makes deception more detectable when judges have access to nonverbal modalities but less detectable when they have access only to verbal ones. However, the actual relationship of motivation to sender behavior has not been tested within the MIE paradigm, which requires judges detecting motivated (or unmotivated) deception under different modalities. Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) argues that motivation benefits deceivers, prompting strategic behavioral control that enables evasion of detection under both nonverbal and verbal modalities. A mock theft experiment was undertaken to pit these two alternative theories against one another and to test the explanatory mechanisms of arousal, negative affect, cognitive effort and strategic control. Participants (N = 186) either “stole” a wallet from a classroom or were witness to the theft and received a high or low motivation induction (including monetary incentives) to be judged truthful and innocent of the theft by trained interviewers. Interviews were conducted under one of three modalities—face-to-face, audio, or text chat. Actual nonverbal and verbal behaviors were measured, as were judge accuracy. Deceivers reported higher motivation, negative arousal, and cognitive effort, but also more behavioral control than truthtellers, especially in nonverbal modalities. Contrary to the MIE and consistent with IDT’s strategic communication perspective, they also generally evaded detection (only 47% were judged guilty), especially when motivated. Detection of guilt was poor under all but low-incentive text and low- incentive FtF conditions. Linguistic, kinesic and vocalic behaviors revealed that deception, modality and motivation all influenced performance, with high motivation often having more influence on truth tellers than deceivers and having beneficial effects.

Abstract:

The motivation impairment effect (MIE) claims that motivation makes deception more detectable when judges have access to nonverbal modalities but less detectable when they have access only to verbal ones. However, the actual relationship of motivation to sender behavior has not been tested within the MIE paradigm, which requires judges detecting motivated (or unmotivated) deception under different modalities. Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) argues that motivation benefits deceivers, prompting strategic behavioral control that enables evasion of detection under both nonverbal and verbal modalities. A mock theft experiment was undertaken to pit these two alternative theories against one another and to test the explanatory mechanisms of arousal, negative affect, cognitive effort and strategic control. Participants (N = 186) either “stole” a wallet from a classroom or were witness to the theft and received a high or low motivation induction (including monetary incentives) to be judged truthful and innocent of the theft by trained interviewers. Interviews were conducted under one of three modalities—face-to-face, audio, or text chat. Actual nonverbal and verbal behaviors were measured, as were judge accuracy. Deceivers reported higher motivation, negative arousal, and cognitive effort, but also more behavioral control than truthtellers, especially in nonverbal modalities. Contrary to the MIE and consistent with IDT’s strategic communication perspective, they also generally evaded detection (only 47% were judged guilty), especially when motivated. Detection of guilt was poor under all but low-incentive text and low- incentive FtF conditions. Linguistic, kinesic and vocalic behaviors revealed that deception, modality and motivation all influenced performance, with high motivation often having more influence on truth tellers than deceivers and having beneficial effects.

Available Formats

Format	Quality	Bitrate	Size
MPEG-4 Video	480x360	344.46 kbits/sec	47.39 MB	View	Download
WebM	480x360	197.97 kbits/sec	27.26 MB	View	Download
iPod Video	480x360	487.11 kbits/sec	67.01 MB	View	Download
MP3	44100 Hz	249.83 kbits/sec	34.40 MB	Listen	Download
Auto *	(Allows browser to choose a format it supports)