Leach, A.-M., Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L.
(2004). “Intuitive” lie detection of children’s deception by
law enforcement officials and university students. Law
and Human Behavior, 28,661–685.
Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2002). Development of lying to
conceal a transgression: Children’s control of expressive
behaviour during verbal deception. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 26,436–444.
Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2006).
Adults’ judgments of children’s coached reports. Law and
Human Behavior, 30,561–570.DETECTION OFDECEPTION
IN HIGH-STAKESLIARS
High-stakes lies occur where there are large positive
consequences of getting away with the lie or large neg-
ative consequences of getting caught. Because the out-
come of the lie is of considerable concern to the liar, it
follows that he or she will probably experience more
guilt and/or detection anxiety than when telling low-
stakes lies. In addition, the liar will probably try partic-
ularly hard in such situations to avoid getting caught.
This increased effort will be cognitively demanding, and
therefore liars probably experience more cognitive load
when telling high-stakes lies than when telling low-
stakes lies. Accordingly, scholars believe that detecting
high-stakes lies should be easier than detecting low-
stakes lies. Most lies told in daily life are of the low-
stakes variety; these lies are easier to replicate and hence
are most commonly researched in laboratory situations.
Studies of high-stakes liars have revealed, however, that
their behavior is similar to that of low-stakes liars inso-
far as it typically reveals signs of increased cognitive
load and behavioral control. Observers can make use of
such signs of increased cognitive load when attempting
to detect these high-stakes lies.
For practical reasons, most deception detection
research has focused on low-stakes lies; a participant
will be asked to lie about a fairly trivial matter for the
sake of the experiment. The stakes may be raised
slightly, by informing the participant either that his or
her behavior will be scrutinized for sincerity by an
observer or that being a good liar is an important indi-
cator of being successful in a future career (many
careers require the ability to hide one’s true feelings or
intentions). Sometimes participants are motivated by
the offer of a reward for a convincing performance.Laboratory experiments, however, cannot ethically
re-create a high-stakes lie scenario. It is true that the
majority of lies told by most people are low-stakes,
trivial, day-to-day lies. However, what of the suspects
in police interviews, smugglers at airports, speech-
delivering corrupt politicians, and adulterous spouses?
Some have attempted to create examples of such lies
by raising the stakes further in laboratory studies—for
example, by giving participants the opportunity to
“steal” U.S.$50 and allowing them to keep the money
if they are able to convince experimenters. Moreover,
some participants have faced an additional punish-
ment if found to be lying—for example, sitting in a
cramped, dark room listening to blasts of white noise.
Studies such as these raise ethical concerns and yet
still fail to compete with the stakes in many real-life
situations.
Another way to examine the behavior of the high-
stakes liar is to look at instances where people have
been caught on video telling lies and truths in real life.
Such field research is more difficult than laboratory
studies in that in real life it can be difficult to establish
the ground truth. Therefore, it is imperative that it be
known for sure when the communicator is telling the
truth and when he or she is lying. In some situations,
researchers have looked at suspects in their video-
taped police interviews; then, through reviewing case
files containing solid evidence (forensic evidence,
reliable witness statements, etc.), elements of suspect
interviews were established where it was known that
the suspects had told the truth or lied. Treated in this
fashion, similar clips can be examined for behavioral
information and shown to observers to see if they are
able to detect such lies.
Deception research in general has demonstrated
that behavioral differences between liars and truth
tellers are subtle at best and often inconsistent. They
are the result of conflicting mechanisms in the liar. The
liar may experience emotional arousal, which makes
him or her nervous, resulting in behaviors that are
stereotypically associated with lying, such as increased
fidgeting, gaze avoidance, and so on. Simultaneously,
the liar might try to control his or her behavior to avoid
displaying such stereotypical deceptive behavior,
which would result in exhibiting fewer fidgety moves
and maintaining eye gaze. Finally, because lying is
often (though not always) more cognitively complex
than truth telling, the liar might experience behaviors
associated with increased cognitive load (e.g., decreased
blinking and body movements and increased pauses in216 ———Detection of Deception in High-Stakes LiarsD-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 216