(Medical Xpress) -- Older people cannot lie as convincingly as younger people, are worse at detecting when others are lying, and the latter is linked to age-related decline in emotion recognition, new University of Otago research suggests.
Department of Psychology researchers Ted Ruffman, Janice Murray and Jamin Halberstadt compared young and older adults’ skills at deception as judged by listeners within and outside their age group. Dr Murray presented the findings today at the Association of Psychological Science’s annual convention in Washington, D.C.
The study involved 60 participants being shown video clips of 20 people expressing their actual or false views on topical issues such as factory farming and stem cell use in humans. Ten of the speakers were aged 30 or under and 10 were 60 or over. Two clips of each speaker were shown; one in which they were lying, and the other being truthful.
The 60 listeners, who consisted of two equal-sized groups with average ages of 21 and 71, were asked to determine if the person in each clip was being truthful or lying. They also underwent tests that required judgments of emotional expression and age in faces.
Associate Professor Halberstadt says the results of the lie detection test showed that both young and older listeners found it easier to differentiate truths and lies when the speaker was an older adult compared to a young adult.
“It could be that older people are less convincing liars because the kinds of cognitive abilities required for successful deceit are also those that tend to deteriorate with age,” he says.
Lying places demands on memory and planning ability (e.g., formulating a plausible argument, keeping story facts straight) and on social understanding (e.g., judging whether a particular argument will convince a listener, as well as keeping track of a listener’s response as the lie unfolds to potentially alter the argument).
“In our study, we also found that older participants in the lie detection test were not as good as their younger counterparts at differentiating between lies and truths.”
Further analysis showed that older people’s scores in the emotion recognition test strongly predicted how well they would do in the lie detection task.
“As with our recent findings on older people’s worse abilities in detecting social gaffes, and also older men’s tendency to talk for too long and go off topic when talking, age-related decline in emotion perception was again linked to a poorer performance in the phenomenon being studied.”
The research team also examined an idea proposed by previous researchers that recognising brief flashes of negative facial emotions such as guilt, fear or disgust, known as “micro-expressions”, plays a key role in detecting lies.
To do this, in the emotion recognition test the team showed participants images of faces displaying one of six different types of emotion, varying the duration of the images on the computer screen. The three durations used were 1/20th of a second, ¼ of a second, or until the participant assigned an emotion to the face.
“While emotion recognition ability explained the difference in lie detection between young and older adults, there was no particular advantage associated with correctly identifying facial emotions displayed for the shorter times. These results suggest that recognising micro-expressions is perhaps not necessarily key to detecting deceitfulness after all,” Associate Professor Halberstadt says.
He says that people who are lying could well be sending out detectable signals with some emotional content, but these may or may not solely revolve around facial expressions, and do not necessarily leak out only briefly.
“Emotion recognition also involves auditory and body-language aspects, so the giveaway signals might additionally, or instead, be heard in the voice or seen in emotions expressed through the body. We still don’t know what exactly allows listeners to correctly detect lies, although we know that people can differentiate lies and truth at a rate above chance level - though they are far from perfect.”
Associate Professor Halberstadt says that it would be interesting to study whether older adults’ difficulties telling and detecting lies affects their susceptibility to fraud schemes and their general social well-being.
“As well as problems arising from being more easily deceived, a reduced ability to tell white lies that spare others’ feelings may impair their relationships, for example.”
The team’s findings are also being published in the US journal Psychology and Aging. Tina Vater, who is now with the University’s Injury Prevention Research Unit, was also a study co-author.
Provided byUniversity of Otago
Citation: Older people not as good at lying or detecting lies: study (2011, May 27) retrieved 15 December 2023 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-05-older-people-good-lying-lies.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
As an expert in psychology and deception research, I can confidently delve into the fascinating findings presented in the article from Medical Xpress, highlighting the research conducted by the Department of Psychology at the University of Otago. The study, led by researchers Ted Ruffman, Janice Murray, and Jamin Halberstadt, explores the intriguing dynamics of lying and lie detection across different age groups.
The research involved a meticulous comparison of young and older adults' abilities to deceive and detect deception, drawing connections between age-related factors and proficiency in these skills. The study comprised 60 participants who viewed video clips featuring individuals expressing either truthful or false views on various topical issues. The participants, divided into two groups with average ages of 21 and 71, were tasked with determining the veracity of each speaker's statements.
The key findings suggest that older individuals are less convincing liars compared to their younger counterparts. This disparity is attributed to cognitive abilities crucial for successful deception, which tend to decline with age. Lying places substantial demands on memory, planning ability, and social understanding, all of which may deteriorate in older individuals.
Interestingly, both young and older listeners exhibited greater ease in differentiating truths and lies when the speaker was an older adult. This phenomenon might be linked to the cognitive challenges associated with successful deception that align with the aging process.
Furthermore, the study revealed that older participants were not as adept at distinguishing between lies and truths, highlighting a potential age-related decline in lie detection skills. The researchers also established a strong correlation between emotion recognition and lie detection, emphasizing the role of age-related decline in emotion perception in poorer lie detection performance among older individuals.
In exploring the hypothesis that recognizing brief facial micro-expressions plays a pivotal role in detecting lies, the research team conducted an emotion recognition test. Surprisingly, the study found no specific advantage associated with identifying facial emotions displayed for shorter durations, challenging the notion that micro-expressions are key to deceit detection.
Associate Professor Halberstadt suggests that emotion recognition encompasses auditory and body-language aspects, indicating that signals of deception may extend beyond facial expressions. The article concludes by posing intriguing questions about the potential impact of older adults' difficulties in lying and detecting lies on their susceptibility to fraud schemes and overall social well-being.
This research, published in the US journal Psychology and Aging, sheds light on the complex interplay between age, deception, and emotion recognition, providing valuable insights into the cognitive processes underlying these intricate human behaviors.
