Study 3 – Concealing while Walking

Participants.

For this study, 120 University students were recruited. Participants with invalid data (e.g., incomplete/unclear video footages) were excluded. Valid data from 100 participants (54 males,

46 females, Mage = 22.18 years, SD = 5.13) were included in the analyses. To participate,

students were required to have normal, or corrected to normal vision and hearing, as well as normal ability of body movement and communication.

The experiment, conducted by three doctoral experimenters, took place in an open area of a UK University. The experiment area was a designated pathway against the wall of a University

building (with a 90° turn in the middle of the pathway). Participants were either concealing or

not concealing a token (a timer with alarm) while walking through the pathway. Each participant needed to memorise a series of numbers (8 digits) while performing the task. The same covariate battery was used from Studies 1 and 2 (except for replacing Goldberg’s Big Five Scale with a shorter scale namely Big Five Inventory, see section 1.2), together with manipulation check questions. Two high-definition video cameras were used to record behaviour. A professional high-definition video camera was used where face-to-face judgment was introduced (see details below). Each participant received a £5 voucher as the reward for completing the study.

Design and procedure.

In this study, the independent variables of deception and degree of the probability of detection were manipulated in a 2 (veracity: deceptive vs. honest) × 2 (probability level: higher vs. lower) between-subjects design, and participants were randomly assigned to the four groups. Veracity was manipulated by instructing participants to hide a timer on their person and walk through the pathway, or to walk through the pathway without hiding anything. The level of probability of deception detection was manipulated in terms of whether or not to involve a confederate examiner engaging in face-to-face evaluations (after monitoring participants’

performance using a professional camera) regarding whether (s/he doubted) the participants were hiding the timer. The confederate wrote down the evaluation for each participant without

interacting with them directly. As discussed in Section 1.2 and Chapter II, evaluations introduced a higher level of probability of deception detection, compared with conditions without

Upon giving their consent to take part in the study, participants were instructed to queue at a waiting area (where they could not see the entire experiment area). Once called by an

experimenter, each participant stood at the starting point of the pathway and received detailed oral instructions about their task. Then participants were provided with an 8-digit series of numbers which needed to be memorised and reported at the end of the pathway. The memorisation task, as performed by all participants, was introduced with the purpose of

balancing the complexity of the simple walking task. When they were ready, participants walked through the designated pathway, following signs on the floor. At the end of the pathway, all the participants reported to another experimenter about the number that they could remember. Their performance was scored and an identity-related incentive was given (serving motivating roles, DePaulo et al., 2003) by informing them that the names of the top 10 players would be posted on the university website. In order to ensure all participants walked through the pathway at normal speed, a loose time pressure was set by telling them they needed to finish the walking task within 2 minutes (normally needs less than 1 minute). Details about the experimental conditions are specified below.

The group ‘deceptive & evaluated’ (DE) hid the timer on their person while walking through the pathway. A monitor (a big professional camera) was presented behind the 90° turning on the pathway. Participants were told that an examiner (role-played by an experimenter) was monitoring them via this camera, and s/he would give an immediate judgment as to whether s/he doubted the participants were hiding the alarm on their person. The DE group was instructed to try not to be identified as a person who was carrying the timer.

Then, the group ‘honest & evaluated’ (HE) performed a similar task, and was also evaluated by the examiner, except for the fact that they did not carry the timer while walking

through the pathway. Groups of ‘deceptive & non-evaluated’ (DN) and ‘honest & non-evaluated’ (HN) participated in a similar way to DE and HE, but were not evaluated by the examiner. No monitor or examiner was presented on those participants’ routes.

Following the behavioural tasks, participants received questionnaires regarding

manipulation check and demographic information, etc., as in Studies 1-2. Finally, participants were debriefed, and received a £5 voucher as a reward for completing the study. Behavioural data were recorded using video cameras and transferred into numerical data through the coding process introduced in Section 2. Values of mean and standard deviation for all the analysed dependent variables are presented in Appendix 3 Table A-3.

5.2. Results

Similar to Study 1, a series of ANCOVAs were conducted for all dependent variables, followed by Bonferroni pairwise comparison. Same covariates retained in the previous two studies were retained in the tests for Study 3. Table IV-7 presents the results for Study 3, from which no significant effects of veracity or probability of detection were found. This is discussed below.

Table IV-7

ANCOVA results for Study 3a

Deception Level of Probability

F df p ηp2 F df p ηp2

Movements and Covariates

Eye/eye brow 3.05 1, 88 .08 .03 0.62 1, 88 .43 .01

Age 0.09 1, 88 .77 .00 0.09 1, 88 .77 .00

Gender 1.29 1, 88 .26 .01 1.29 1, 88 .26 .01

Western/Non-western 0.25 1, 88 .62 .00 0.25 1, 88 .62 .00

Hand and arm 0.77 1, 88 .38 .01 0.30 1, 88 .58 .00

Age 0.68 1, 88 .41 .01 0.68 1, 88 .41 .01

Gender 0.06 1, 88 .80 .00 0.06 1, 88 .80 .00

Western/Non-western 0.13 1, 88 .72 .00 0.13 1, 88 .72 .00

Impressions and Covariates

Tension 0.77 1, 88 .38 .01 0.09 1, 88 .77 .00 Age 10.40 1, 88 .00 .11 10.40 1, 88 .00 .11 Gender 1.27 1, 88 .26 .01 1.27 1, 88 .26 .01 Western/Non-western 2.78 1, 88 .10 .03 2.78 1, 88 .10 .03 Attempted control 1.01 1, 88 .32 .01 1.30 1, 88 .26 .02 Age 3.42 1, 88 .07 .04 3.42 1, 88 .07 .04 Gender 0.02 1, 88 .89 .00 0.02 1, 88 .89 .00 Western/Non-western 0.01 1, 88 .94 .00 0.01 1, 88 .94 .00 Positive affect 0.00 1, 88 .95 .00 1.84 1, 88 .18 .02 Age 14.03 1, 88 .00 .14 14.03 1, 88 .00 .14 Gender 1.17 1, 88 .28 .01 1.17 1, 88 .28 .01 Western/Non-western 2.16 1, 88 .15 .02 2.16 1, 88 .15 .02 Negative affect 0.73 1, 88 .40 .01 0.00 1, 88 .97 .00 Age 2.99 1, 88 .09 .03 2.99 1, 88 .09 .03 Gender 0.10 1, 88 .05 .00 0.10 1, 88 .05 .00 Western/Non-western 0.11 1, 88 .74 .00 0.11 1, 88 .74 .00

Note. aThere is no significant results found in this study. ηp2 = effect size estimate – partial eta squared. !

5.3. Discussion

Given the results showing that no effect of deception or probability levels was found, Study 3 indicates some context-related issues that may have influenced individuals’ behaviour: (1) it is difficult to elicit/observe a difference between deceivers’ and honest individuals’ behaviour when there is no social interaction or verbal statement involved in the deception- related tasks; (2) there needs to be adequate length of behavioural tasks, so as to elicit/observe

the difference in behaviour between deceivers and honest individuals; (3) although the memorisation task was introduced into the study for increasing task complexity, there is

insufficient behavioural data to be elicited and analysed when the behaviours involved in the task are too simple (e.g., simply hiding an object while walking).

Based on the importance of task complexity as indicated by the results of this study, I intended to investigate the effect of task complexity on deceivers’ behaviour when the

probability of detection is already high. Study 4 was thus designed to assess dual deception tasks in order to increase task complexity, which is considered to increase cognitive loading in

individuals (Vrij et al., 2009). On the basis of enhanced probability of detection, the effect of cognitive loading was tested by introducing a simulated security identity check as well as a reconnaissance task, which could be conducted by terrorists (O'Brien, 2008). The aim for this study was to investigate nonverbal cues that could be observed in such specific contexts with induced probability of detection as well as duplex or single deception tasks.

6. Study 4 - Lying and Reconnaissance whilst Passing Through a Security Control Point