Lie detectors and the lying liars who use them

by Hassan Ugail, The Conversation
No, I did not get a manicure before coming here today. Credit: Shutterstock

As society becomes more and more dependent on machines to make important decisions, the use of technology for lie detection is becoming increasingly popular. But as much as we would like to rely on technology to give us definitive answers, humans may well always be able to beat the lie detector.

Authorities have traditionally been cautious about using but they appear to be warming to the idea. Lie detectors are most readily associated with the police but other authorities have started to get in on the act. Around 20 councils in England are already using or plan to use detector tests to try to identify fraudulent benefits claimants, and UK prisons recently announced that around 1,000 of the UK's most high-risk sex offenders are to undergo mandatory lie detector tests.

This is all somewhat surprising given that some of the technologies that form the very foundation of these devices simply aren't reliable.

Lying to ourselves

There are currently several options to choose from when it comes to technology. The best known method is the traditional polygraph test, which involves monitoring your pulse, breathing, blood pressure and skin conductivity to measure your physiological responses to questions. Other non-invasive technologies include analysing with computer vision techniques and measuring facial temperature profiles with thermal imaging systems.

There have been technological advances in recent years but none are foolproof. Most modern systems based on automated facial analysis rely on computer vision technologies to identify and track a face in real time and machine intelligence techniques to make decisions.

The system will first look at the expressions a person uses under normal, unstressed conditions and uses those as a baseline when they take the lie detector test. Cues such as asymmetries in facial expressions, shifting gaze and a changed rate of blinking are often associated with strong emotion so if the machine detects unusual variations from the baseline then it is often assumed that the subject is lying.

Reliability can be increased by incorporating various other features, such as voice and facial temperature profile. However, at best, these systems can still only identify when subjects are lying or telling the truth roughly 80% of the time. Our own experiments under lab conditions confirm this.

Lie detection is incredibly difficult even for humans. In general, we can detect a lie only about 54% of the time. But that in itself tells us something interesting, if a little dispiriting. We may not be very good detectors of lies, but as a species we are incredibly good at lying.

Our ability to deceive may even be what has enabled us to dominate the planet. Humans and animals lie for their own gain – be it to avoid danger or gain some sort of advantage over competitors – and can be associated with survival.

The more intelligent an animal is, the more likely it is to lie, which puts us humans right at the top of the ladder. Research has also shown that the best liars are also the best at detecting lies. So are humans becoming better and better at deceit? As a species we're certainly becoming more intelligent. A phenomenon known as the Flynn effect bears this out. IQ test comparisons indicate that between the 1900s and today, Americans have gained three IQ points per decade. That's something that anyone hoping to make a working lie detector should consider.

Given our increasing intelligence and the fairly basic methods used in lie detection, it seems unlikely that we'll produce lie detectors that can pass muster in the near future. We have yet to fully understand the underlying psychological processes of lying so asking a machine to code it is ambitious, to say the least.

Many will argue that until lie detectors can be made 100% foolproof, they should not be accepted in courts or used in decision making processes. However, the important point to note here is that modern lie detectors, especially those that are non-invasive, can serve as very useful tools which will assist and work alongside with experienced human interrogators. Whatever their future, lie detectors have already made their mark and are here to stay.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

British group unveils facial reading lie-detector

Sep 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A British team of researchers led by Professor Hassan Ugail of Bradford University have demonstrated a new type of lie-detector at the annual British Science Festival in Bradford. Instead of hooking people ...

True story: Not everyone lies frequently

Dec 13, 2013

Does everybody lie? We are taught that this is common sense and that most people tell little white lies. But perhaps this isn't true. A recent paper published in Human Communication Research found that many people are ho ...

Recommended for you

Even depressed people believe that life gets better

36 minutes ago

Adults typically believe that life gets better—today is better than yesterday was and tomorrow will be even better than today. A new study shows that even depressed individuals believe in a brighter future, but this optimistic ...

Aspirin shown to benefit schizophrenia treatment

17 hours ago

A new study shows that some anti-inflammatory medicines, such as aspirin, estrogen, and Fluimucil, can improve the efficacy of existing schizophrenia treatments. This work is being presented at the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nik_2213
not rated yet Jul 18, 2014
Remember the 'English Nanny' trial, where the young woman stayed icy calm, was thus considered a liar and found guilty ? Then, at appeal, she over-emoted in the way a US jury expects of the innocent, and was cleared ??
freshsliceddna
not rated yet Jul 21, 2014
Detection of P300 events using EEG is pretty much foolproof for detecting lies if the right questions are asked.