Deception and Self-awareness

  • Glyn Lawson
  • Alex Stedmon
  • Chloe Zhang
  • Dawn Eubanks
  • Lara Frumkin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6781)


This paper presents a study conducted for the Shades of Grey EPSRC research project (EP/H02302X/1), which aims to develop a suite of interventions for identifying terrorist activities. The study investigated the body movements demonstrated by participants while waiting to be interviewed, in one of two conditions: preparing to lie or preparing to tell the truth. The effect of self-awareness was also investigated, with half of the participants sitting in front of a full length mirror during the waiting period. The other half faced a blank wall. A significant interaction was found for the duration of hand/arm movements between the deception and self-awareness conditions (F=4.335, df=1;76, p<0.05). Without a mirror, participants expecting to lie spent less time moving their hands than those expecting to tell the truth; the opposite was seen in the presence of a mirror. This finding indicates a new research area worth further investigation.


terrorism deception self-awareness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Home office statistical bulletin. Retrieved from,
  2. 2.
    Jessee, D.: Tactical means, strategic ends: al qaeda’s use of denial and deception. Terrorism and Political Violence 18, 367–388 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Brien, K.A.: Assessing hostile reconnaissance and terrorist intelligence activities. The RUSI Journal 153, 34–39 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B.M., Rosenthal, R.: Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 14, pp. 1–57. Academic Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ekman, P.: Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage, 1st edn., pp. 43–161. Norton, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vrij, A.: Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edn., pp. 1–188. Wiley, West Sussex (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Memon, A., Vrij, A., Bull, R.: Psychology and law: truthfulness, accuracy and credibility, 2nd edn., pp. 1–55. Wiley, Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekman, P.: Deception, lying and demeanor. In: Halpern, D.F., Voiskunskii, A. (eds.) States of mind: American and post-soviet perspectives on contemporary issues in psychology, pp. 93–105. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M.: From flawed self-assessment to blatant whoppers: the utility of voluntary and involuntary behavior in detecting deception. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 24, 673–686 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walczyk, J.J., Roper, K.S., Seemann, E., Humphrey, A.M.: Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology 17, 755–774 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walczyk, J.J., Schwartz, J.P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M., Zha, P.: Lying person-to-person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology 59, 141–170 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kozel, F., Johnson, K., Mu, Q., Grenesko, E., Laken, S., George, M.: Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry 58, 605–613 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carrión, R.E., Keenan, J.P., Sebanz, N.: A truth that’s told with bad intent: an ERP study of deception. Cognition 114, 105–110 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bagley, J., Manelis, L.: Effect of awareness on an indicator of cognitive load. Perceptual and Motor Skills 49, 591–594 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doherty-Sneddon, G., Phelps, F.G.: Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory & Cognition 33, 727–733 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vrij, A., Heaven, S.: Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity. Psychology, Crime & Law 5, 203–215 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DePaulo, B.M., Lindsay, J.J., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., Cooper, H.: Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin 129, 74–118 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., Leal, S.: Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10, 141–142 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buller, D., Burgoon, J.: Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory 6, 203–242 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burgoon, J., Blair, J., Strom, R.: Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue availability in detecting deception. Human Communication Research 34, 572–599 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burgoon, J., Buller, D., Floyd, K.: Does participation affect deception success? Human Communication Research 27, 503–534 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glyn Lawson
    • 1
  • Alex Stedmon
    • 1
  • Chloe Zhang
    • 2
  • Dawn Eubanks
    • 2
  • Lara Frumkin
    • 3
  1. 1.Human Factors Research Group, Faculty of EngineeringThe University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.School of ManagementUniversity of BathBathUK
  3. 3.School of PsychologyThe University of East LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations