HELLO AND WELCOME TO DECEPTION RESEARCH
This page is a result of a joint project funded by EPSRC and conducted by Cambridge University, UCL, Newcastle University and the University of Portsmouth. Here you will find info on researchers and literature on deception. Simply follow the links above.
We are eager to hear from you if you wish to contribute to this repository.
Drop us a line at: david.modic[@]cl.cam.ac.uk (as is usual, remove the square brackets).
|Machiavelli as a poker mate||
Machiavellianism has been considered in the literature as the symbol for manipulative strategies in social conduct. However, it has been rarely studied via behavioural experiments outside the laboratory, in more naturalistic settings. We report the first behavioural study (N=490) evaluating whether Machiavellian individuals, high Machs, deceive more than low Machs in online poker, where deception is ethically acceptable and strategically beneficial. Specifically, we evaluated Machiavellianism, bluffing patterns, and emotional sensitivity to getting “slow-played” (“stepping into a trap”). Bluffing was assessed by realistic poker tasks wherein participants made decisions to bluff or not, and sensitivity to slow-play by a self-report measure. We found that high Machs had higher average bluffsizes than low Machs (but not higher bluffing frequency) and were more distraught by getting slow-played. The Machiavellian sub-trait “desire for control” also positively predicted bluffing frequency. We show that online poker can be utilized to investigate the psychology of deception and Machiavellianism. The results also illustrate a conceptual link between unethical and ethical types of deception, as Machiavellianism is implicated in both.
|European Association of Psychology and Law (EAPL) Conference 2014 Summary||
The European Association of Psychology and Law (EAPL) annually organises a conference to bring together researchers and practitioners operating in a forensic context. Combining different disciplines, such as psychology, criminology and law leads to a multidisciplinary conference with presentations on topics like detecting deception, false memories, presenting forensic evidence in court, investigative interviewing, risk assessment, offenders, victims and eyewitness identification (see program). This year’s conference took place during the 24-27th of June 2014 in St. Petersburg and I (Sophie Van Der Zee) summarised a selection of talks given during this conference.
|We Will Make You Like Our Research: The Development of a Susceptibility-to-Persuasion Scale||
Link to full text at ssrn: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2446971 Abstract: Social-psychological and other persuasive mechanisms across diverse contexts are well researched, yet in general the research focusses on the effectiveness of a specific persuasive technique. In the present paper, our specific interest lies in the development of a generalized modular psychometric tool that measures individual susceptibility to persuasion.
|Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and psychological processes in immoral behavior||
Link to full text from the Author's site. Abstract. Moral rationalization is an individual's ability to reinterpret his or her immoral actions as, in fact, moral. It arises out of a conflict of motivations and a need to see the self as moral. This article presents a model of evil behavior demonstrating how situational factors that obscure moral relevance can interact with moral rationalization and lead to a violation of moral principles.
|Deception in Experiments: The Costs of an Alleged Method of Last Resort||
Abstract: In psychology, deception is commonly used to increase experimental control. Yet, its use has provoked concerns that it raises participants' suspicions, prompts second-guessing of experimenters' true intentions, and ultimately distorts behavior and the control it is meant to achieve. These concerns can and have been subjected to empirical analysis. Our review of the evidence yielded two key results: First, there is evidence that participants who experienced deception firsthand are likely to become suspicious and that there are non-negligible differences between suspicious and reportedly na‹ve participants.