Appendix B: Deciding for yourself about the research
Research Team, 2006). Since nearly everyone disapproves of lying, and since detecting it is often
difficult, the next best strategy is to persuade potential liars that they might in fact be detected.
Furthermore, if we believe that liars should feel ashamed of their behavior, it is reasonable to
suppose that they would show signs of shame—i.e. gaze aversion, shifting on their feet, hesitation,
and the like. The irony is that if we begin to doubt a person’s truthfulness, a truthful person is more
likely to feel uncomfortable, so the person is likely to begin averting gaze and showing other signs
of nervousness anyway. The end result is to reinforce the stereotype of gaze aversion, but not to
identify an actual liar.
For teachers, the implications of this research are twofold. First, it suggests that we should be very
careful before deciding whether or not a particular student is lying on a particular occasion. We
should encourage students to be equally careful with each other; it is too easy, it seems, to jump to
conclusions about this sort of judgment. Second, it implies that a better way to reduce lying by
students is to develop high-quality relationships with them, so that students will not feel a need to
lie. Obviously, developing high-quality relationships is a big job and it may be easier with some
students than with others. But it appears to be more effective than falsely accusing truthful
students while overlooking actual deceptions.Questions
➢ Classrooms are like any other social setting in that they can only function well if their
members’ are truthful with each other. How could you communicate this message to
students so that they endorse it themselves? One way, of course, is to discuss the problem
with students. But another way might be to stage “simulated lying” between students, and
have students see how well they can discern true liars. Would a simulation be a good idea,
or would it be undesirable by giving students practice at lying effectively? Explain your
views about this question.
➢ Recall the study above in which thought-questions caused individuals to avert direct gaze.
Why do you suppose that people from Trinidad and Canada averted gaze by looking up,
while people from Japan averted by looking down? What sort of cultural significance does
this difference have, if any? In answering this question, think as well about how you could
find out if the answer is valid.References
Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 37(6), 60-
74.
DePaulo, B., Lindsay, J., Malone, B., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118.