COMM 415 1st Edition Lecture 20 Outline of Last Lecture I. Exam 2Outline of Current Lecture II. Regulation of Gene TranscriptionA. Definition of regulon III. Alternative Methods of Gene Regulation at the Transcriptional Level (Quorum Sensing and the Two- Component System)IV. Methods of Gene Regulation at the Translational LevelV. Introduction to MutationsCurrent LectureApril 14,TuesDeception – an act intented to foster in another, a belief that the deceiver considers the information false. Key : conscious and deliberate intent- deception has a dual nature; communication of specific info, and meta-communication( communication about a communication (ie. saying something & trying to convince that person you are telling the truth. ) about the truth value of the content. Deception vs. leakage cues;- deception cues; information that gives away the falsehood ( ie. speech errors—uhh.. I was at my moms house- stuttering)- leakage cue- giving away the true information ( ie. slip of the tongue- I was at my girlfriends… oh no( slip of tongue), my moms house). These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.Cue competition; when verbal and non-verbal signs carry implications that are at odds. ( ie. getting nervous saying something- suggesting lie going on). Detection apprehension; the fear of being caught at telling a lie. ( huge issue for liars- needing to send msg. appearing honest & to manage emotional state at the same time). The Othello Error;- occurs when a lie catcher fails to consider that a truthful person who is under stress mayappear to be lying; truthful people may be afraid of being disbelieved. ( failure to consider that a truth teller may seem deceptive/nervous to you b/c don’t want to be disbelieved). - ( ie. person brought down to station- interviewed knows innocent but when interviewed you get caught up and thinking that people wont believe you.)Underlying Emotional Factors: -Fear ( detection apprehension)-Guilt ( deception guilt; while deceiving you when successful ie. buying it), then feel guilty when person is believing your lie. -Excitement ( “duping delight”); wow actually believing it. Letting the person interrogate you etc. - sometimes all of them can be combined - most lies fail to either inadequate preparation or interference of emotions. Theoretical Approaches to Deception: -why deception presents itself as it does non-verbally:- attempted control: overly rehearsed , too planned out ( routine, too well rehearsed) ie. car salesman . Versus. Spontaneous- arousal; when we get into deceptive situations have to manage arousal ( heart rate/ breathing/ sweating), have to manage that arousal- then noticing can tell whether someone is being deceptive or not. - affect ( emotion), cues that are additional emotional states going on that sometimes contradict , someone who is feeling guilty/fear/ duping delight; can interfere with deception- cognitive load; IV. Humans are poor lie detectors:- Vrij (2000). - - reviewed 40 studies on deception, detection- 67% accuracy rate for detecting rates. - 44% accuracy rate for detecting lies. - High accuracy for truth, low accuracy for lies = “truth bias” - Bond and DePaulo ( 2006)- Results from 206 reports , and 24,483 judges- People achieve an average of 54% correct lie-truth judgments- Correctly classifying 47% of lies as deceptive and 61% of truths as non-deceptive. Study 2:- reviewed 142 studies- 19,801 judges of deception- mean accuracy of 54.05 % in discriminating lies from truths- mean of 55.50 % accuracy for truth judgments. Conclusion:- people do not do much better than chance at detecting deception- people typically report extremely high confidence in their detection ability; this is misplaced confidence. ( thinking I’m good at this)How good are the pro ’ s- study ; Vrij- - students were interviewed twice by uniformed police officers- in both interviews they denied that they had a pair of headphones , when in fact they really did in one of the interviews. - 360 police detectives watched the video results:- accuracy rates were low- in BEST, condition police performed at 60% - their confidence in detecting deception was high- the correlation between their confidence and actual ability to detect deception was r= .04 ( basically 0) V. Why humans are poor lie detectors:- truth biasstudy: Millar and Millar ( 1995)- people are especially likely to judge familiar vs. unfamilar persons as people. ( you cut the person the most slack- the people you know the best) “ my partner has been honest in the past, therefore he/she is being truthful now” ~ truth bias. Detecting Deception in Children:Study; Talwar and Lee, 2002- induced 3 to 7 year olds to lie. - Temptation resistance paradigm ; ie. don’t play with the red toy. – that they knew they would break & then telling parents they didn’t touch. - College students watched video taped interrogation. - 3 to 7 year olds have not fully developed their deception skills. - However, judges could not accurately detect the liars based on nonverbal cues. ( ie. breaking eye contact). - Someone at the 86th percentile of detection liability is only 1% better than someone at the 16th % percentile. - Standard deviation on judges detection abilities is only 1% ( everbody does about the same – not very well). Why are humans poor lie detectors:( Vrij et al, 2010), Psych Science- lack of motivation to catch liars ( sometimes easier to roll with lies, to not damage a relationship- not worth it)- no Pinocchios nose- absence , ( no one dead giveaway ) - countermeasures- when people in act of lying we know there lying, the liars can challenge your disbelief - embedded lies- lies are embedded in truth ( ie. leaving out one key point). , being delivered to us in a context of truth. ( ie. doing it in self-defense; many peoples main excuse). - No adequate feedback- you never know if your picking up on it or being deceived , - Violation of conversational rules ; assuming that people are telling the truth., we cut them slack - Good liars- may be very difficult to pick up on. Common errors in the lie detection process: - examining the wrong cues ( ie. gaze, and facial expression) , we develop rules of thumb, “ if you cant look me in the eye not truthful,” - overemphasis on non-verbal cues- the Othello Error; we fail to consider that