Category: Deception

Deception is a highly debatable ethical issue in the Psychology. There have been studies that display deception in experiments as objectionable. As well as studies that display it as a necessity for a desired set of results. However, despite opinions deception is still very popular in psychological research. Even though, the practice has frequently been criticised (Baumrind, 1985, cited in Epley & Huff, 1998), and the concerns regarding its impact on how psychology is viewed by the public (Kelman, 1967, cited in Epley & Huff, 1998). It is not uncommon that a psychologist will deceive a participant. Two types of deception occur in psychological research. Researchers who withhold certain aspects regarding the true meaning behind a study, but do not completely mislead a participant. They are known to be deceiving participant’s through deception by Omission, also known as passive deception. On the other hand, when participants are deceived knowingly by the researcher alongside, the researcher imposing improper knowledge about the study and going against ethical guidelines. These participants are known to be, being deceived by Commission. Also known as active deception (Kemmelmeier et al., 2003). Psychologists are asked by The Code of Human Research Ethics to gain as much information as possible from participants that take part in any of their research. However, not all Psychologists undertake this requirement. This is usually due to the attempt to prevent participants from acting in an unnatural way, further resulting in a researcher’s study being inaccurate. Individuals outside of the psychology profession, alongside some individuals within, see deception of participants within research as inappropriate. Deception is especially inappropriate, if the reaction from the participants after deception has been revealed, results in exasperation or objection (The British Psychological Society, 2014, p. 24).

In 1920 an experiment was composed on the subject of emotional response against different conditions. It was called the “Little Albert” experiment. Dr John B. Watson and his graduate assistant Rosalie Rayner, demonstrated that classical conditioning principles could be applied to fear a previously neutral stimulus. Watson and Rayner conducted their theory on an 11-month-old male child whose name was unknown. Watson referred to as “Albert B.”, Albert B was introduced to a series of tests and experiences that were used to “condition” him. Watson and Rayner decided to test their theory by introducing fury animals to him in hope to install a phobia of them in him (Smith, 2017). A white rat, a rabbit, a monkey and a variety of masks were shown to Albert. The child was unemotional and showed no fear to any of these stimuli. Watson exposed the white rat to Albert B alongside, a hammer being struck upon a steel bar. This was to test if a fear reaction could occur from a loud sound. The child did not cry in reaction to this sound. Albert B came back after one week and after several attempts, using different fury stimuli, Watson and Rayner introduced the white rat with the loud sound to Albert B again for the 7th time. However, this time the child paired the white rat with the loud sound and began to cry when the hammer was struck on the steel bar. Watson and Rayner introduced the other fury stimuli again, and as expected, Albert B’s fear had attached to the other fury stimuli (Watson & Rayner, 1920). Albert B’s fear transferred onto other fury stimuli, including “Rayners fur coat and Watson dressed in a Santa Claus Beard” (Cherry, 2019).

Deception by commission was undertook in Watson and Rayner’s study. Unaware of participation was used, Albert B was just a baby, he was unable to personally give consent for his participation in the study. Alongside this, he was too young to understand the true meaning behind the study. However, it has been said that Albert B did have a Mother who received $1 for her “sons” participation in the study. Although, this theory has never been confirmed neither has her true identity. Watson and Rayner did not de-condition Albert B, this did not protect him from psychological harm as he was exposed to state fear (Essays, 2019). The American Psychological Association (APA) encourages all psychologists to avoid harm. This code of ethics was not recognised until 1953, 33 years after the “Little Albert” study was composed (‘Little Albert Experiment’, n.d.). The experiment unethical, psychologically dangerous and would not be able to be replicated today, although it would be very easy to do so (Shelton, n.d.).

Deception is a key theme that that resonates within the broad field of dark psychology. Just like the majority of themes in this book, it may be a bit challenging to decipher whether a particular act of deception constitutes of dark desire or not. Before diving into this distinction, we must first of all have an understanding of what deception is. Majority of people who claim to know what deception means, classify it as being in the same category as lying. This is however inaccurate as deception bears a bit more weight than lies. Put more correctly, deception may be considered to be a consequence of a particular lie that has a specific intention of making another individual believes a lie, in order to misrepresent or conceal a particular truth. How then does deception manifest itself if our normal lives? Deception tends to manifest itself in a number of ways in our lives in form of, omitting certain truths, fraudulently providing of evidence of something that you know fully well to be false and lying. Not all acts of deception however can be categorized to be in the vicinity of dark psychology.as human beings, we often tend to deceive each other for a number of reason.it could either because we want to mask feelings of inadequacy or just emanates from a kindness point of view. This can be seen candidly when looking at dating sites. Often, people both men and women; lie about them so as to make them appear more attractive to the opposite gender. Besides from the white lies present in the dating profiles, people also tend to deceive themselves about a variety of issues including but not limited to ambition, health status or the general satisfaction with life. These everyday uses do not constitute of dark deception.

Deception cam is seen to emanate from our dark psyche, when they are executed with a somewhat indifferent intention towards the person that is being deceived. Our daily and somewhat casual use of deception in our daily lives could be seen to be motivated by an inability to own up to the truth in one way or another. Dark deception is however south of this as an individual understands of truth is that at no point does it serve his immediate deceptive goals. This serving as a motivator, the deceiver then changes or hides the truth from his victim to flow with a version of events that best suits his selfish desires. What do I mean by this? If a person has opted to use dark deception, then his main intention is but to inflict harm upon the victim and not to offer any form of assistance. Majority of people in their quest for better debunking this enigma are of the opinion that, dark deception is determinant of the intensity, but is really determinant of the individual partaking In decit.as previously stated above, dark deception is not only limited to the large scale use.in some cases, small deceptions are executed in such in such a skilled manner that it bares more server effects that the large scale usage. How then exactly do dark manipulators use smaller deception to fulfill their macabre desires? The goal that is often desired by manipulators is to test the limits gullibility limits as well as to program the victim into believing the particular deceptive statements often used by the manipulator. The logic behind this is linked to consistency in that, the more a person is gradually exposed to smaller deceptions, the likely hood of them falling prey to larger ones over time is expected. Apart from this gradual exposure, small deception may also be used in the view to undermine a victims own trust in relation to his own ability to act in a logical manner and also his reasoning capacity. Once the victim becomes accustom to this, he becomes very cautious of his reasoning often making then wary of what is happening. This often creates a somewhat butterfly effect since now the victim is convinced that any sort of suspicion that they may have is equal parts irrational and just outright insane due to the fact that they are not aware that the manipulator gross abuse of their naivety. Large scale uses of deception can be said to better show the practice of dark psychology more clearly. The question we then ask ourselves is how this is done.it is no secret that masking your identity completely, with a view to be able to convince someone of being a completely different person is perhaps one of the hardest things to do. This is because you will have to change almost everything about yourself from name, occupation place of residence you name it. This method of dark psychology if used by a skilled manipulator is a really powerful tool since it will have the victim eating out of his hand, without a single ounce of doubt in their body. Having then looked at the variety of ways dark deception may be used so as to produce the desired results intended by the manipulator, the next important thing we need to discuss is how then these deceptive tricks often are carried out by this manipulators. Also, what are the most common subjects human being are often deceived about both in the large scale usage as well as the small scale usage.

The core of deception is often centered on money. What do I mean by this? Money has a tendency to drive the manipulator to result to using deception on a particular victim, with an aim to either rid him of said money completely or just with the aim of hiding away their own bundles. A beggar is the perfect example used to better shed light on this.as hard as it may be to believe, these beggars more often than not dive into a number of psychological principals so as to siphon money from innocent unsuspecting victims of their hard earned money despite having plenty of it themselves.in an attempt to exploit the victims kindness and humanity, these beggars will often inflict some bodily harm upon themselves with a view of making them look completely helpless top their victims. Some of the more extreme deceivers will go as far as turning their own children into some serious drug addicts just to make their scam more believable. This is just but a single example of the lengths that these dark deceivers are willing to go within the realm of money related deception. Deception is also widely prevalent in regards to one’s marital status. Most dark deceivers when perusing the opposite gender often for a sexual fling or just with the aim of long term commitment will chose to keep their current marital status under wraps so as easily seduce their new caught. Some skilled deceivers are able to have relationships with a vast majority of partners silently undernoted to their wife’s. This type of deception has been made even more difficult to uncover especially now with the dominance of social networking apps. There apps a have made it possible for a deceiver to keep in constant contact with his many ‘wives’ without having to leave the comfort of his home.in some cases, a deceiver is not really looking to court multiple women, but uses deceit to make people believe that they are married when in fact it is the exact opposite. This may occur for a number of reasons.

The institution of marriage is regarded as one of the most scared unions that exist, and as such many people may be more trusting towards a married couple than one that is not married. A manipulated wearies of this fact will then exploits this to his own gain. They will then proceed to fabricate a whole story of how they were once married to this ‘other ‘person, who wound up dying in one way or another. This warrants sympathy from the unsuspecting victims. They will even go a step further and even fabricate fake marriage certificates of the deceased so as remove all doubt. Such deception often takes shape where some insurance money was left behind by the deceased, and in most cases the deceiver gets what he wants. Another instance people usually chose to deploy deception is where there is an existence of criminal history.as human beings, we tend to distance ourselves from people who have had a criminal past because deep down we are aware of the fact that nothing will come out of that interaction. Take for example a man straight out of the penitentiary. If he happens to cross paths with an attractive woman who he desires to have a long term commitment with or just a casual encounter, the chances of him revealing his criminal past to her are close to none. He will instead give fabricated information about himself so as to appear more attractive and less threatening. This type of deception is not usually considered to be of a dark nature since the deceiver motivation may be fear of rejection.it only qualifies to be in field of dark psychology when the victim happens to have committed a heinous crime such as rape, and keeps it under wraps so as to gain trust with the victim with an intention to commit the crime again. This is a tactic often employed by serial killers. Perhaps the most iconic dark deceiver would have to be Ted Bundy. He often used deception to create this lovable and charming personality which most people fell for within minutes of running into him. Amazing a total body count of 30 women is proof enough of his prowess in the field of dark deception. Individuals who share the same psychological composition are in almost all scenarios driven by their out of this world urges to the point where they will do almost everything to hide the truth so as to satisfy their devilish urges. These manipulators at times happen to ne people who can be regarded as being social outcasts with some behaviors that aren’t normally accepted by the general population. This makes them a bit shy in regards to opening up to other human beings, since they risk losing their potential mate, or rather just a possible friend once they are open about their indifferent desires. They will then result to deploy dark deception with the hopes of appearing normal. For example, if a particular individual opts to use dark deception on a victim with the aim of getting sexual benefits from them, they are less likely to focus on this particular subject. This is because understand all too well that it will not only pose as a serious red flag too the victim, but also chances of it succeeding decreasingly decline since now the victim is able to get a feel of the manipulators true nature.in this scenario, the manipulator might instead, lie along the lines of him seeking love and commitment, making the victim drop their walls and falling prey to this type of deception.

The main area where manipulators feel like deceiving the victim seems like the only logical route to take is most probably in regards to his own personal feeling towards his victim. Love is one of the strongest emotions we were programed to have. Now imagine the effect deception, specifically dark deception would have on a normal human being. The manipulators will influence the victim to think and know them as this whole other person who they will fall for. Only to be driven to madness once their true nature ci brought to light.so severe is the level of the psychological and emotional distraught on the victims that they may lead to something like suicide. I the most basic sense, dark deception will often be deployed based on the interpersonal feeling the manipulator has towards his given victim depicting them as something complete south of what they themselves are. The main area where deception is most common is the usage in romantic relationships. A manipulator approaching his victim with this fake persona often leaves a kind of a “white knight “feeling resonating within the victim. This is so because this persona may be the exact person they seemed to be absent from their lives. Deceptors said to be acting on their craft at an expert level have the ability to just analyze a person’s wans and desires from just reading of your nonverbal cues. This sort of deception is likely to open a Pandora’s Box of an endless stream of long term manipulation. Deception is used by these manipulators aiming to exude a sense of general friendship, increasing the victim’s susceptibility to dark manipulation. Take for example in the event that the manipulator decides to make victim of a venerable person. When approaching them, they will portray a very charming and friendly person offering his support without coming off as an add ball. The manipulator is willing to do absolutely anything the victim wishes with the soul purpose of making the victim less weary when they are being manipulated. This is especially likely to happen if this deceit continues for an extended period of time. With a firm grasp of what deception is, as well as its spectrum, let us now dive into the particular tactics often used in the deployment of dark deception. Highly skilled manipulators know how to use each of these tactics we shall discuss in a very harmful way that is likely to make an impact in the victims life.it is important however to note that manipulators don’t restrict themselves to one of these tactics, but will often use a combination of all of them achieving faster results.

Lying can easily be classified as being the main form of dark deception. This tactic could be highly preferred by the manipulator if he has established that his victim is susceptible to lies and unable to counteract them, either because the victim has a childlike sense of trust or just resultant of the manipulators efforts of work over an extended amount of time.in most cases, manipulators usually have a separate set of lies to use, if and when the victim starts noticing some gaps to this plan.an experienced enough manipulator will often develop the skill of attaching his lies to certain truths over time. What does this mean? The victim will for example attach 20% lies to a story that is 80% true.it becomes near impossible for the victim not to see the whole story as being true since the deception is not that loud so to speak. Believe it or not even the manipulators tone of voice is enough to trap their victim. They may say something falsely deceptive in a particular tone, or using a certain gesture in such a way that also blinds the victim into perceiving what the manipulator is saying to be the truth.

Another tactic prevalent in the deployment of deception would be implying. Though a more subtle than lying, implying suggests of something false as being true rather that saying it. A scenario of this can be seen where money is involved. If a manipulator approaches his victim with the aim of deceiving him about the amount of money that there in possession of, they could ether tell them a direct lie, or simply Imlay the particular lie. The implied lie will probably some vague statement of bravado like “I have a lot of money from my many businesses”, knowing too well that this is not the case at all. This statement implies that the manipulator is wealthy, without him having expressly said it. This tactic will prefer by manipulators as it prepares for the worst case scenarios which in this case is having been found out by the victim. If for example at any given point the victim accuses the manipulator of lying, he may boldly deny this owing to the fact that at no given time did he happen to say lie which is technically true. This tactic may be especially more damaging to those victims who have a hyper active sense of imagination. All the manipulator has to do is just plant the seed of deceit in the victims psyche and just wait for it to run its course. The victim will come to a conclusion based on their idealized version of their “reality” prompted by the manipulator.

Another form of deceit used in dark deceit is omission. This is simply the failure to mention something that is true. This tactic seeks to contrast with our previous tactics. Whereas implication or lies prefer to use false information to cover up the truth, omission is then geared towards just ignoring the truth while at the same time leading the victim’s attention away from it. If for example a convicted rapist is smitten by a lady in his neigbourhood.in getting to know each other better, the manipulator will simply avoid his dark past inversely sharing only the happy yet normal stories about their past. Manipulators often tend to carry out omission by creating somewhat of an “emotional fence “around a particular subject.to break this down further, an “emotional fence “is created where the manipulator cites that a certain part of their life’s bring nothing more than nightmares to them when brought up. The victim falling slave to human emotions, will then avoid bring it up at all so us not to cause their ‘friend “any psychological distress. This tactic often allows them to avoid the truth, while at the same time making the victim feel guilty.

The last tactic we shall look at is that of fraud. This is hands down the most candid form of deception used by those who fancy the use of dark psychology. Fraud is a tactic that is aimed at having a particular set of falsified documents and other pieces of evidence backing up the lies, rather than simply lying about their past. Manipulators will for example, strategically leave out bits of their “achievements “for their victim to see, without having to explain himself and appearing to be a bit too pushy about it making the whole claim mighty suspicious. Over the course of time, fraud has been seen to be occurring at an alarming rate now especially with the wide spread use of computers as well as the internet. Deceivers are now more than ever able to generate realistic looking documents with the help of professional software’s ,able to bypass the keen eye of just about anyone. Instances where people have been able to secure job opportunities using a false identity or just stole from their won company without ever being found out are to name just but a few examples of professional fraud. Fraud also takes shape in our personal lives. This is particularly so in regard to health status. Some dark manipulators will liaise with their doctors in order to falsify their health records allowing them to spread the disease they without anyone being the wiser. When a manipulator decides to use dark deceit for a fraudulent purpose, he can be regarded as being an overly religious user of dark psychology. This is the case since, is requires guts to break the law whose only consequence is facing some considerable amount of jail time.

One of the most devious and sneaky ways dark deception is often carried out in a skillful manner is that where follows the manipulators own pantomime of feeling deceived by their victim.by virtue of portraying the victim as the one with the deceptive nature, focus then shifts from himself and onto the victim allowing to carry out his dark plan right under the victims nose, this is basically a deception within a deception.

The deception can include several different things, such as mask, camouflage, diversion, hand sleight, lies, and hiding. The agent will monitor the mind of the subject because the subject has faith in them. The subject believes what the agent says and could base their plans for the future and shape its universe on the stuff the agent told them. Deception is an omission and lying form of communication to persuade the subject’s world to serve the agent the best.

Types of deception

The Interpersonal Deception Theory outlined five different types of deception. The first one is lies. This is when the agent collects information or provides information that is totally different from the reality. This knowledge is to be presented to the subject, and the subject must understand it as the truth. The subject cannot understand that false information is being fed; if the subject understands that the data is wrong, he or she will not speak to the agent, and he or she will not be fooled.

Equivocation is the second type of deception. The agent makes conflicting, vague, and/or conditional statements. This is to make the subject confused and not understand what is happening. It can also save your face as an agent if the subject returns later, claiming they have been deceived.

Concealment is the other form of deception that is very common. It happens when the agent intentionally or by conduct hides or omits information that is relevant to the subject for a particular context. The agent will not have lied to the client directly, but he will ensure that the important information needed is never a subject.

Exaggeration happens when the agent overestimates a fact or stretches the facts to some degree to transform the story as it wishes. The agent may not lie to the subject directly, but they will make the current situation a bigger deal so that the subject bends to their will

An understatement is exactly the opposite of the method of an exaggeration, since the agent plays down or minimizes aspects of the reality. They will suggest that an incident isn’t so significant, when in fact it could be the thing that determines whether the subject is graduating or getting promoted. The agent will return later to explain that they did not realize how big a deal it was, and therefore they don’t end up being the bad guy. These are just some of the few forms of deception that can be identified. The deception agent will use any method available to him to achieve his final goal, very much as they like.

How to detect deception

If the subject wants to stop deceit their life so that the mind games that follow can be stopped, it is often a good idea to learn how to detect deception when it occurs. It is often hard for the subject to decide that deception exists unless the agent slips up and either tells a simple or flat lie or contradicts something which is already real. Although it may be difficult for the agent to deceive the subject for a while, it is often the case among people who know one another. It is often very hard to detect if deception occurs because no signs are really present.

Deception, however, is able to put a great deal of pressure on the mental workings of the agent because they need to find out how to recall all the comments they have made on the subject so that the tale remains plausible and consistent. One mistake on the part of the agent and the subject will tell something is wrong. The agent is more likely to redirect information to tip off the subject, either via non-verbal or verbal signals, because of the pressure they have to keep the past straight. Researchers believe that identification of deception is a mental, dynamic, and complex process that often differs from the message being exchanged. The Interpersonal Deceit Theory shows that deception is an iterative and complex mechanism of control that exists between the agent who manipulates information in such a way as to make it different from the reality and the subject who then tries to find out whether the message is true or not. The acts of the agent shall be linked with the actions of the subject after the message is received. The agent must disclose nonverbal and verbal details during this exchange, which will lead the subject deceit. The subject might be able to tell at some points that the agent has been lying to them.

Alert Vrij, a noted deception scholar, claims that there are no nonverbal actions that are solely related to deception. While some nonverbal actions may be linked to the act of deception, it is also possible that these cues are related to other factors present at the time. Unless, of course, the agent outrightly lies to the subject. Another scholar of deception, Mark Frank, provides an idea of deception as involving the identification at the cognitive level of the subject. If deception takes place, a cautious attitude is important on the part of the agent, and the subject should listen to the words and takes note of the body language in order to determine whether they are being deceived.

Main components of deception

While deciding what factors display during deception may be difficult, there are certain components that are typical of deception. It is often not obvious that these elements existed unless the agent told a blatant lie or was caught in deception. These are components that will be later remembered if the agent uses the deception technique in the right way. Camouflage, mask, and simulation are the three main components of deception.

Camouflage is the first dimension of deception. This is when the agent tries to conceal the facts otherwise so the target does not know that the information is missing. This technique is often used when the agent uses half-truths when they giving information about something. The subject will not know that camouflage took place until the truth is revealed sometime later. The agent is able to mask the facts so that the target can honestly find it hard to learn by chance about the deception.

Disguise is another component of the deception process. It occurs when the agent depicts themselves as other people to the subject. The agent can decide to hides something from the subject, such as their real name, what they do for a living, with whom they were with and what they are up to when they are out. This is more than simply changing the suit someone wears in a piece of film; the agent tries to change their entire personality to deceive their target. There are examples that demonstrate the use of disguise in the deception process. One is to dress in interactions with the agent, sometimes as someone else, so that they cannot be identified or recognized. The agent will do this to get back into a multitude of people who don’t like them, change their personality to make people like them, or otherwise advance their goals. In some situations, the word disguise can be the agent who disguises the true nature of a proposal in the hope that it hides any controversial effect or motive for such a proposal. This cover also takes on the form of propaganda or political rotation. Disguise can be dangerous because the true nature of what is happening is concealed. If the agent disguises who they are, it can be really hard for the subject to decide who the agent really is. When information is hidden from the subject, it clouds the ability of subject to think, as they do not have the right information to make logical choices. Although the subject can assume that he makes logical decisions on their own will, the agent excludes key information that might change the mind of the subject.

Simulation

This is the third component of deception. The agent shows the subject information that is untrue. There are three important techniques that an agent can use in simulation. The first is mimicry, where the agent is unknowingly depicting something that is similar to themselves. They could be talking about someone else’s idea and make give credit to themselves by saying that the idea is theirs.

Fabrication is the second technique where an agent will use something in reality and change it so that it becomes different. They can tell a story and add embellishments to make the story sound better or worse than it actually was. While the main story may have happened, it is going have things added on top it and change the whole narrative

Lastly, we have a distraction as a form simulation. This is when the agent tries to make the subject concentrate on something other than the facts, usually baiting or proposing something more appealing than the reality of the matter. For example, when the husband is having an affair and feels that the wife is starting to learn about it, he may take a diamond ring home to confuse her. The problem with this strategy is that it does not always last long, and the agent must find another way to confuse the subject in order to continue the process.

How to use deception

Psychological research is the sector that mostly uses deception as it is necessary to determine the actual results. The explanation behind this deception says that people are very sensitive to the way they look both to others and to themselves and that their self-awareness can distort or interfere with the way the subject is compared to doing research, in normal circumstances, in which they do not feel examined. The deception is intended to make people feel more comfortable so that the agent can get right results.

The agent may be interested, for example, in knowing which circumstances a student could cheat on a test. If the agent specifically investigates the student, the subjects are unlikely to confess to lying, and the agent could not make out who tells the truth and who does not. In this scenario, the agent should use a distraction to get a clear picture of how cheating fraud takes place. Alternatively, the agent could suggest that the study is about how intuitive the subject is; even in the process, you can say that you can look at the answers of someone else before offering your own answers. This analysis includes the conclusion.

Alternatively, the researcher may suggest that the research seeks to find out how insightful the subject is. The subject may even be advised that they have the opportunity to look for answers from someone else before providing their own answers. At the conclusion of the deception experiment, the agent should ask the subject what the real nature of the trial is and why the deception is required. In addition, some agents will also give a quick description of the results between all participants when the study is carried out.

In addition, some agents will also provide a quick summary of the research results achieved among all participants after the research is done. Although deception in research studies of this kind is used widely, it is bound up with the ethical standards set out by the American Psychological Association; there is some controversy as to the issue of whether deception should be allowed. Many think that deception is not needed, and it harms the participating subjects. Others believe that if the subjects knew the nature of the study in advance, the results would become skewed.

Some suggest that if the individuals had understood the exact nature of the analysis beforehand, the findings would be distorted. The main problem with the use of deception in a study is often not the real deception. Instead, what happens is the harsh procedure used in such a study as well as the effects of what occurs in the experiment. This is generally the reason why some people resist using such experiments and why it is considered unethical. Another reason against the morality of deception is that the participant already has informed consent to engage in the research.

The rules and regulations that follow the study were read, and the subject felt that they are told enough about the end results to sign a waiver to begin. It is claimed that where the agent deceives the subject and leaves out important information on the research, regardless of whether it is in the best interest of the study, the subject is simply not told at first. Therefore, if they didn’t specifically consent to the actual study they should not participate in the study.

Regardless of the arguments in this field, some interesting observations were made when the subjects were fooled about the nature of the analysis. An example, with regard to the above research on cheating, it is possible that most of them would not have cheated if the participants were told what the experiment was about. This is because neither of them wants to be seen to those around them as being deceptive or false. The deception helped the scientists to see what could happen in a real-world application. Therefore, if the participants of the memory test referred to above know the true nature of the experiment, they could not have likely listened to the figure of authority or controlled its performance. Despite the controversies surrounding, researchers have obtained some interesting results through the use of deception. Such findings might not have been possible without deception, as the subject could have reacted differently to the test.

The broadest definition portrays deception as social behavior in which one individual deliberately attempts to persuade or convince another to accept as true what the deceiver believes to be false. Self-presentation is one of the reasons for lying and people have lied about their emotions and feelings, actions, accomplishments and knowledge (DePaulo, Kashy, & Kirkendol, 1996).

OR

A false remark which is told with the intention of deceiving is called a Lie (Chambers, 1991).

A lot of nonverbal cues have been found by the researchers which are associated with deception, but most of them are evidently not reliable. For example, microexpressions, such as head shaking or negative facial expressions (Mehrabian, 1971) (Burgoon & Buller, 1994), the pitch of the voice tends to be raise when people are engaged in deception (Vrij A. , 1994), their body posture generally becomes more rigid when one lies (Mehrabian, 1971) (Vrij A. , 1994)and alterations in patterns of eye contact can be seen (Horvath, Jayne, & Buckley, 1994). These behavioral cues reflect increased physiological arousal during deception, which may arise because the individual feels guilty, is afraid of being detected, or is excited at the thought of deceiving others (Ekman, 1992). Researchers and criminologists devised Polygraph- a machine based technique that attempts to detect arousal, monitor physiological functions such as heart rate, breathing rate, and skin conductance in order to detect Deception (Scientific validity of polygraph testing: a research review and evaluation — a technical memorandum., 1983).

A growing no. of researchers have used FMRI(Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and PET(Positron Emission Tomography) to clarify the neural correlates of deception. Spence was one of the first ones to report a FMRI study of deception. They found that longer reaction times and increased activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex is related to lying (Spence, Farrow, & Herford, Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans, 2001). These neuroimaging techniques are used to detect deception as well as to differentiate the neurocognitive processes underlying deception (Furedy, Davis, & Gurevich, 1988).

A lot of researches have been conducted that revealed the biological basis of deception. Langleben used guilty knowledge test(GKT) along with fMRI and an increase in the activity in superior frontal gyrus and anterior cingulate cortex was seen which is related to deception. (Lee , Liu, & Tan, 2002). Ganis dissociated the neural correlates of different sorts of deception. They stated that the anterior prefrontal cortex was involved in general deception but the right anterior prefrontal activity was more engaged in well rehersed lies rather than spontaneous lies. (Ganis, Kosslyn, & Stose, 2003). Kozel and his studies focused on knowledge gained through past personal action. Specifically, participants were prompted to lie about the location of money (i.e., a $50 bill) which they had learned through recent personal experience (i.e., participants were instructed to search under various items in a room to locate the money) which found that the orbitofrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex were singnificanty activated during deception. (Kozel, Revell, & Lorberbaum, 2004)

An investigation was also done to know whether men and women contrast when falsifying general (self-irrelevant) and personal (self-relevant) information. The result suggested that it was more difficult for the men to lie about personal information than general information, whereas for women both types of lying had similar levels of difficulty. Differences were also found in neural correlates underlying deceptive responses between men and women. (Marchewka, Jednorog, Falkiewicz, Szeszkowski, Grabowska, & Szatkowska, 2012).

Abe and Lee reported that increased prefrontal activity was found during deception as it reflected neural correlation of intentional falsification of responses, whereas such activity was not observed with unintentional memory errors (Lee, Au, & Liu, 2009). H215O PET experiment was led by Abe with a novel twist, in which participants were instructed to deceive the other experimenter. PET was appropriate in the light of the fact that it allowed direct communication between individuals and experimenters. Activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the amygdala(involved in deception), both of which are key regions for social interactions, was seen during the experiment (Abe, Suzuki, & Mori, Deceiving others: distinct neural responses of the prefrontal cortex and amygdala in simple fabrication and deception with social interactions., 2007). However, according to Sip it was unrealistic because there was a narrow choice for the wrongdoing and absence of unpleasant consequences if deception was discovered (Sip , Roepstorff, McGregor, & Frith, 2008).

Greene and Paxton conducted a fMRI experiment combined with novel deception tasks in which individuals could gain monetary reward by precisely anticipating the outcomes of computerized coin flips. In some trials individuals recorded their predictions in advance, and in other trials individuals were rewarded based on self-reported accuracy, therefore, they could gain money deceitfully by lying about the accuracy of their predictions. Results revealed that dishonest individuals displayed an increase in prefrontal activity, both when choosing to behave dishonestly and during trials when they refrained from dishonesty and honest individuals did not exhibit such control-related activity when choosing to behave honestly, as compared with a control condition without any opportunity for dishonest gain. Based on these results, Greene and Paxton argued that honest behaviors are more closely linked to the absence of temptation than to the active resistance of temptation (Green & Paxton, 2009).

A 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET by Abe interestingly revealed that Parkinson Disease’s patients face difficulties in telling lies because of decreased metabolic rates of the left dorsolateral and right anterior prefrontal regions in the brain (Abe, Fujii, & Hirayama , Do parkinsonian patients have trouble telling lies? The neurological basis of deceptive behaviour., 2009) and it is consistent with the results of another study by Abe with healthy individuals which discovered that left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, has a role in inhibiting true responses and making deceptive responses (Abe, Suzuki, & Tsukiura, Dissociable roles of prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices in deception., 2006).

Kikuchi showed that the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is related with unconscious memory repression (amnesic states), and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with intentional deception (feigning ignorance) (Kikuchi, Fuji, & Abe, 2009) and further evidence from Priori and Karim’s study of transcranial direct current stimulation (noninvasive technique that elicits functional changes in the human brain without requiring direct access to the neural tissue) displayed that focal changes in the excitability of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex after anodal transcranial direct current stimulation can alter the speed and efficiency of deceptive responses leading to ‘anodal block’ and impairment in prefrontal function (Priori, Mameli, & Cogiamanian, 2008) but on the contrary Karim reported that focal changes in the excitability of anterior prefrontal cortex due to cathodal TDCS facilitated the deceptive response as faster reaction times, a decrease in the sympathetic skin conductance response, a decrease in feelings of guilt, and an increased behavioral pattern of skillful lying was seen (Karim, Schnieder, & Lotze, 2009).

A set of higher order cognitive processes that allow flexible modification of thought and behavior in response to changing cognitive or environmental contexts is called Executive Control (Spence & Langleben, Detection of deception with fMRI, 2008) It has 3 components – working memory, task switching, and inhibitory control and these contribute to deception to the extent that deception involves: keeping the truth in mind while formulating a deceptive response (working memory), suppressing a truthful response (inhibitory control), and switching between truthful and deceptive responses (task switching) (Miyake, Friedman, Witzki, & Howerter, 2000).

LIE DETECTION USING FMRI

Researchers have used fMRI as a lie detector at the level of individual participants in different fields. A significant activity in the ventrolateral region of the prefrontal cortex was observed in the context of hidden information even when he individual were not asked to express deceptive responses. (Gamer, Klimecki, & Bauermann, 2009) (Nose, Murai, & Taira, 2009). There is still a need for methodological issues like the effects of simple countermeasure (a method used by liars to defeat lie-detection procedures) to be resolved. The utilization of stratergies that gives access to people’s mental states raises moral issues like privacy concerns. Hence, transfer of imaging technologies to the judicial system is not resonable. Neuroscientists must not ignore the misuse of fMRI as a lie detector which can prompt significant mistakes such as false accusation (Bles & Haynes, 2008) (Haynes, 2008).

NEURAL CORRELATES OF PATHALOGICAL LYING

Lies that are constant and destructive to one’s well being is pathological. Modell conducted a study of pathological lying by using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and proposd that right thalamic dysfunction may be responsible for the patient’s tendency to lie impulsively (Modell, Mountz, & Ford, 1992). Yang and other authors demonstrated that pathological liars with a past of repeated lying (e.g. fraud) disclosed an increase in white matter volumes in some prefrontal subregions, particularly the orbitofrontal cortex, inferior frontal cortex, and middle frontal cortex. Such a result reveals that prefrontal provides a neurobiological correlate of a deceitful personality (Yang, Raine, & Lencz, 2005).

BRAIN MECHANISMS FOR THE JUDGEMENT OF LYING

With the advancement, research into how the brain evaluates lies is considered important and hence Grezes explored the brain mechanisms involved in detecting deception when observing the nonverbal dynamic behavior of actors and found that when individuals judged the actions as reflecting deceptive intention, the amygdala and rostral anterior cingulate cortex were significantly activated (Grezes, Frith, & Passingham, Brain mechanisms for inferring deceit in the actions of others., 2004). In a later study, they also found that the amygdala was activated only when the individuals realized they had been deceived (Grezes, Berthoz, & Passingham, Amygdala activation when one is the target of deceit: did he lie to you or someone else?, 2006). Stuss gave more clarification about lesion specificity and showed that bilateral, particularly right, orbitofrontal lesions impaired patient’s ability to detect deception. Taken together, these previous neuroimaging and neuropsychological findings raise the liklihood that the limbic and paralimbic systems are responsible for social and affective processing play a critical role in the judgment of lying (Stuss, Gallup, & Alexander, 2001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, deception as a psychological process or a social behavior in itself is a complex phenomenon and can be best interpreted as an integeration of multiple cognitive processes. Technological headways and long studied researches have allowed for the direct assessment of the neural substrates underlying deception. All the evidences lead on the conclusion that the prefrontal cortex plays a pivotal role in human deceptive behavior, although lie detection by fMRI is still problematic based on current evidence.

A substantial amount of research both on deception and neuroimaging techniques underlying deception is yet to be done. Following areas should be further researched to explore the underlying posssibilies under Deception as a psychological phenonmenon.

1. Neurobiological basis of genuine (i.e. not experimental) deception.
2. A clarification of the conditions that facilitate or inhibit peoples tendencies to be honest or dishonest in a social context should be done to get a better understanding of how the brain determines whether to tell a lie in a complex social interaction.
3. Research into neurodevelopmental disorders to get insight into the neural mechanisms underlying deception.

REFERENCES

1. Abe, N., Fujii, T., & Hirayama , K. (2009). Do parkinsonian patients have trouble telling lies? The neurological basis of deceptive behaviour. Brain , 132: 1386-1395.
2. Abe, N., Suzuki, M., & Mori, E. (2007). Deceiving others: distinct neural responses of the prefrontal cortex and amygdala in simple fabrication and deception with social interactions. Jcogn Neurosci , 287-295.
3. Abe, N., Suzuki, M., & Tsukiura, T. (2006). Dissociable roles of prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices in deception. Cerebral Cortex , 16: 192-199.
4. Bles, M., & Haynes, J. (2008). Detecting conceled information using brain-imaging technology. Neurocase , 14:82-92.
5. Burgoon, J., & Buller, D. (1994). Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. . J Nonverb Behav , 155-184.
6. Chambers. (1991).
7. DePaulo, B., Kashy, D., & Kirkendol, S. (1996). Lying in everyday life. J Pers Soc Psychol 70 , 979-995.
8. Ekman, P. (1992). Telling Lies. New York: WW Norton .
9. Furedy, J., Davis, C., & Gurevich, M. (1988). Differentiation of deception as a psychological process: a psychophysiological approach. Psychophysiology , 683-688.
10. Gamer, M., Klimecki, O., & Bauermann, T. (2009). fMRI-activation patterns in the detection of conceled information rely on memory related effects. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci .
11. Ganis, G., Kosslyn, S., & Stose, S. (2003). Neural correlates od different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb Crtex , 830-836.
12. Green, J., & Paxton, J. (2009). Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA , 12506-12511.
13. Grezes, J., Berthoz, S., & Passingham, R. (2006). Amygdala activation when one is the target of deceit: did he lie to you or someone else? Neuroimage , 601-608.
14. Grezes, J., Frith, C., & Passingham, R. (2004). Brain mechanisms for inferring deceit in the actions of others. J Neurosci , 5500-5505.
15. Haynes, J. (2008). Detecting deception from neuroimaging signals: a data driven perspecive. Trends Cogn Sci , 12:126-127.
16. Horvath, F., Jayne, B., & Buckley, J. (1994). Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behavior analysis interviews. J Forensic Sci , 793-807.
17. Karim, A., Schnieder, M., & Lotze, M. (2009). The truth about lying: inhibition of the anterior prefrontal cortex improves deceptive behaviour. Cerebral Cortex .
18. Kikuchi, H., Fuji, T., & Abe, N. (2009). Memory repression: brain mechanisms underlying dissociative amenesia. J Cogn Neurosci .
19. Kozel, F., Revell, L., & Lorberbaum, J. (2004). A pilot study of functional magnetic resonance imaging brain correlates of deception in healthy young men. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci , 295-305.
20. Lee , T., Liu, H., & Tan, L. (2002). Lie detection by lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum brain map , 157-164.
21. Lee, T., Au, R., & Liu, H. (2009). Are errors differentiable from deceptive responses when feigning memory imparement? An fMRI study. Brain Cogn , 406-412.
22. Lo, Y., Fook-Chong, S., & Tan, E. (2003). Increased cortical excitability in human deception. Neuroreport , 14:1021-1024.
23. Marchewka, A., Jednorog, K., Falkiewicz, M., Szeszkowski, W., Grabowska, A., & Szatkowska, I. (2012). Sex,Lies and fMRI- Gender differences in neural basis of deception.
24. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. J Exp Res Personality , 64-73.
25. Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Witzki, A., & Howerter, A. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognit Psychol , 49-100.
26. Modell, J., Mountz, J., & Ford, C. (1992). Pathalogical lying associated with thalamic dysfunctional. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci , 4:442-446.
27. Nose, I., Murai, J., & Taira, M. (2009). Disclosing conceled information on the basis of cortical activations. Neuroimage , 44:13380-1386.
28. Priori, A., Mameli, F., & Cogiamanian, F. (2008). Lie specific involvement of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in deception. Cerebral Cortex , 18:45-455.
29. SA., S. (2004). The deceptive brain. J R Soc Med , 6-9.
30. Scientific validity of polygraph testing: a research review and evaluation — a technical memorandum. (1983). Office of Technology Assessment .
31. Sip , K., Roepstorff, A., McGregor, W., & Frith, C. (2008). Detecting deception: scope and limits. Trends Cogn Sci , 48-53.
32. Spence, S., & Langleben, D. (2008). Detection of deception with fMRI. Legal criminal psychology , 1-9.
33. Spence, S., Farrow, T., & Herford, A. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport , 2849-2853.
34. Stuss, D., Gallup, G. J., & Alexander, M. (2001). The frontal lobes are necessary for ‘theory of mind’. Brain , 279-286.
35. Vrij. (2001).
36. Vrij, A. (1994). The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives. J Nonverbal Behav , 117-136.
37. Yang, Y., Raine, A., & Lencz, T. (2005). Prefrontal white matter in pathalogical liars. Br J Psychiatry , 320-325.

Deception is a highly debated ethical issue in psychology. There have been studies that display deception in experiments as objectionable. As well as studies that display it as a necessity for a desired set of results. However, despite opinions deception is still very popular in psychological research. Even though, the practice has frequently been criticised (Baumrind, 1985, cited in Epley & Huff, 1998), and the concerns regarding its impact on how psychology is viewed by the public (Kelman, 1967, cited in Epley & Huff, 1998). Two types of deception occur in psychological research. Researchers who withhold certain aspects regarding the true meaning behind a study, but do not completely mislead a participant, are deceiving participants by omission. When participants are deceived knowingly by the researcher alongside, the researcher imposing improper knowledge about the study and going against ethical guidelines. These participants are being deceived by commission (Kemmelmeier et al., 2003). Psychologists are asked by The Code of Human Research Ethics to gain as much information as possible from participants that take part in any of their research. However, not all psychologists undertake this requirement. This is usually due to the attempt to prevent participants from acting unnatural, further resulting in a researcher’s study being inaccurate. Individuals outside of the psychology profession, alongside some individuals within, see the deception of participants within research as inappropriate. Deception is especially inappropriate, if the reaction from the participants after deception has been revealed, results in exasperation or objection (The BPS, 2014).

In 1920 an experiment was conducted on an 11-month-old male on the subject of emotional response against different conditions (Watson & Rayner 1920). It was referred to as the “Little Albert” experiment. Dr. John B. Watson and his graduate assistant Rosalie Rayner demonstrated that classical conditioning principles could be applied to fear a previously neutral stimulus (Beck et al., 2009).

However, Watson and Rayner detrimentally deceived the child by commission. Alongside unaware of participation (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008). The participant was a baby, he was unable to personally give consent for his participation in the study. It was not reported that the child had parents therefore, it is suggested parental consent was not obtained. Furthermore, he was too young to understand the true meaning behind the study as well as being unable to withdraw himself. Watson and Rayner did not de-condition the participant, this did not protect him from psychological harm as he was exposed to state fear (Cornwell & Hobbs, 1976). The American Psychological Association (APA) encourages all psychologists to avoid harm, Watson and Rayner did not avoid this as they put the participant in danger. However, this code of ethics was not recognised until 1953 (APA, 1953). Furthermore, when this study was conducted no papers expressed any ethical concerns regarding it. Although the study would be considered unethical today, it is unreasonable to infer that this study was unethical in 1920 (Digdon, Powell, & Harris, 2014).

A second study conducted in 1939 consisted of 22 orphan children who were selected for an unethical, unpublished study regarding repetitional speech, the study was later referred to as the “Monster Study” (Bloodstein, 1987, cited in Silverman, 1988). The children were separated into groups, 10 stutterers and 12 normal speakers. The study was designed by Professor Wendell Johnson alongside Mary Tudor under his supervision (Ambrose & Yairi, 2002), in the hope to objectify if removing the label “stutterer” from an individual, will it affect their speech? (Tudor, 1939, cited in Ambrose & Yairi, 2002). A report was released contending that the study was designed to install stuttering into a normally spoken child (Dryer, 2001, cited in Ambrose & Yairi, 2002).

The children involved in this study were deceived by omission, the children were unaware of their participation in the study. The orphanage staff was deceived as they were told that one group of children were not stutterers and that no attention should be paid to these individuals regarding their speech. The staff was also told that a second group were stutterers and their speech should be observed however, both pieces of information were falsified. Mary Tudor later revealed that the orphanage staff did not take part in the study’s deception due to the children’s self-esteem (Tudor, 1939, cited in Ambrose & Yairi, 2002). Furthermore, 2 of the groups were deceived by being told incorrect information regarding their speech. Alongside, 6 out of the 22 students who spoke normally, were exposed to negative labelling along with another 5 children, resulting in normal speakers being induced to stutter. The study had psychological effects on the children as the report suggested that the induced stuttering was irreversible, this included the children who were previously not stutterers (Dryer, 2001, cited in Ambrose & Yairi, 2002). The study as previously mentioned, was set in an orphanage, this would mean that parental consent was impossible to obtain. Although the orphanage staff was aware of the activities, they did not attempt to withdraw the children neither divulge the true objectives of the study (Ambrose & Yairi, 2002). Although this study was unethical and the participants were deceived, the findings obtained from the study supported Johnson’s theory enabling further contribution to stuttering treatment and research (Silverman, 1988).

In conclusion, “Should participants ever be deceived concerning the true nature of a psychological experiment in which they are taking part?”. It has been suggested that deception can sometimes be seen by participants as a more enjoyable and interesting experience (Uz & Kemmelmeier). However, this is not the case with all participants. Although studies have suggested deception can sometimes have zero effect on a participant (Boynton et al., 2013) it can still result in detrimental psychological effects, even if the participant has been de-briefed correctly. On the other hand, if all individuals involved in a research study knew all the information regarding it, the research behind it would be futile. As mentioned previously, issues such as participants acting unnatural and participants no longer wanting to take part are plausible. Although deception in psychological research can result in participants distrusting the activities and attitudes of psychologists, and can potentially result in distress and harm. There are rarely any psychological processes today, that deceive participants of their awareness that they are being studied. Focused research regarding the collection of data would make many psychological researches impossible (The BPS 2014). Deception is essential to generating results, results that will make an endeavour meaningful. However, it should only be used as a last resort (Kimmel, 2011).

Introduction

Deception is a demonstration or articulation which deceives, conceals reality, or advances a conviction, idea, or thought that isn’t correct frequently done for individual advantage. Deception can include dissimulation, propaganda, and sleight of hand, just as interruption, disguise, or camouflage. There is additionally self-Deception, as in dishonesty and bad faith. It can also be called, varying subjective ramifications, bluff, mystification, feign or confusion (Deception, 2020). It is a significant social offense that frequently leads to feeling double-crossed and doubt between relationships. Deception abuses social principles and is viewed as a negative violation of expectations. Many people anticipate companions, friends, and even strangers to be honest (Guerrero, Anderson and Afifi, 2007). This allow an easy social stand with people and allow smooth conversations with easier understanding of each other differences. Forms of deception used in many instances include Lies, Equivocations, Concealments, Exaggerations, Understatements (Deception, 2020). This report will show the negative effects it has on society as a sole being and as a group. Showing the later effects for the deceptor and deceptee.

What are the different forms of deception?

Lies

A lie is a strong untruthful statement. The speaker plans to cause the next person to believe in the truth of their statement that the speaker believes to be false. Henceforth, a lie that has a goal to mislead. The speaker guarantees the listener that the statement that was made is valid by using other means like facial expressions, body language and misleading facts (Mahon, 2020). Example being: person 1 saying “I lost my homework” when intentionally not doing the work given and person 2 accepting the information as true because a sad facial expression is shown by person 1.

Forms of equivocations

There are typical forms of equivocations or double speaking. Saying one thing with a subliminal message or information underneath what is spoken. This either makes information indirect, ambiguous, or contradictory (Equivocation: Definition and Examples | LiteraryTerms.net, 2020). The strategy of this deception is whereby the speaker of an argument causes it to show up, or gives the impression that two words have a similar importance, when they don’t. it’s a vague way of giving misleading information (Equivocation, 2020). Example: “I want to be absolutely clear with the people of the world: The United States does not torture.” (George W. Bush, 2006). This message is very clear but it was later found out that this statement is only true under a special definition of “torture” that’s not shared globally. Making this statement misleading but not a lie (Equivocation: Definition and Examples | LiteraryTerms.net, 2020).

Concealment

Concealment is another form of hiding information ‘Concealment’ is done when the speaker doesn’t uncover all the important information of the matter/argument/situation (not every bit of relevant information/inadequate explanation) to the listener (Research Involving Deception or Concealment, 2018).

Exaggerations

Exaggeration is when a person makes a statement and represent the statement in a more extreme and dramatic way. This is done by when the speaker overreacts to the statement by stretching the truth and overplaying by using language techniques like hyperboles. This will give the listener an increased emotional and mental understanding of the statement then later either accepting it as truth if the statement is backed with evidence to convince the listener (Exaggeration, 2020). Example: “Her brain is the size of a pea.” (Examples of Hyperboles, 2020)

Understatements

Understatements are the exact opposite of Exaggerations it’s when a statement is said in a more relaxed compressed/lessened way to make the statement seem (unreliable/not useful/not important etc) to the listener they are done in 3 main ways comedic, modest and polite. Example can be “You are out to dinner with a friend who spills food down the front of her white shirt. An understatement would be: ‘Really, it’s hardly noticeable.’ (Polite)” (Examples of Understatement, 2020).

How does deception affect people?

While we expect most people to be honest with us the average human being lie several times a day lies can be good “white lies” to spare someone’s feelings or big ones that undermine ones integrity (Deception | Psychology Today Australia, 2020). This will affect the relationship between both parties and individual-self. Deception is very likely to happen with oneself as well and cause a false self-believe of information that can be harmful or have a positive effect (Deception | Psychology Today Australia, 2020).

Deception affects the person being given false information in many ways ((Oldenburg, 1998). A test was conducted by a university professor Wetzel. The test conducted of him having to add a lie in each lecture and compare the number of students who failed in the upcoming test. After a couple of week students started questioning everything Prof Wetzel said showing the negative effect he mentioned “you have to be paranoid to question everything and that’s not a price human what to pay to gain accurate information from others”. Having to question everything and lead a normal life is very hard and socially depressing having not to trust people and information relied. This can lead to further mental, social and physical complications that can affect one’s life in a very negative way (Oldenburg, 1998).

Deception can also be done by lying to oneself this is done when someone deny or push away the relevance of an information opposing the evidence and logical argument. This is said by doctors that when a person lies to themselves it’s to convince themselves of that truth to not be revealed as a liar. This can have detrimental effects on social mental and physical health causing complications in the long run (Self-deception, 2020).

How to identify deception

Detecting deceptions can be very easy and most have signs and forms that will allow the, deceptive people usually don’t refer to themselves and describe events in passive voices.

Deceptions are hard to spot even when using polygraph test. Understanding this many psychologist around the world have been cataloguing deceptions techniques to counter fight it by analysing facial, body language and linguistic expressions. Psychologist are sure that not all can funnel down to liars with positive facial expression regarding the test but that have a higher chance of finding the truth. This has got psychologist and AI experts to come together and make a software that will detect everything at a better rate than humans (ADELSON, 2004).

Conclusion

In conclusion deception plays a huge role in society daily life that allow everyone gain an upper hand in Desires, Relationships and Emotional bliss. Knowing that detecting it will cause panic with society knowing the unknown can cause instability between everything that allow a comfortable human life. This can be used for good or bad, not knowing how to detect it fully accurate. Its better left alone to allow the small freedom of privacy the human mind has at this time and moment. Deception will forever affect humans in Mental, Social and Physical aspect of health never to be fixed because society will forever enjoy the unrestrained life granted to them.

Reference

1. En.wikipedia.org. 2020. Deception. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 May 2020].
2. Guerrero, L., Anderson, P. and Afifi, W., 2007. Close Encounters. [online] Google Books. Available at: [Accessed 20 May 2020].
3. Mahon, J., 2020. The Definition Of Lying And Deception (Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy). [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: [Accessed 23 May 2020].
4. Walton, D., 2011. Fallacies Arising From Ambiguity. Dordrecht: Springer.
5. Literary Terms. 2020. Equivocation: Definition And Examples | Literaryterms.Net. [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 May 2020].
6. Txstate.edu. 2020. Equivocation. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 June 2020].
7. 2018. Research Involving Deception Or Concealment. 6th ed. [ebook] Clemson research complience, p.1. Available at: [Accessed 12 June 2020].
8. En.wikipedia.org. 2020. Exaggeration. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 June 2020].
9. Examples.yourdictionary.com. 2020. Examples Of Understatement. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 June 2020].
10. Examples.yourdictionary.com. 2020. Examples Of Hyperboles. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19 June 2020].
11. Oldenburg, D., 1998. THE TRUTH ABOUT DECEPTION. [online] Washington Post. Available at: [Accessed 23 June 2020].
12. Psychologytoday.com. 2020. Deception | Psychology Today Australia. [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 June 2020].
13. En.wikipedia.org. 2020. Self-Deception. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 June 2020].
14. ADELSON, R., 2004. Detecting Deception. [online] Apa.org. Available at: [Accessed 26 June 2020].

War has been a had a pinnacle role in human history and continues to have an important role today. Throughout time, our government has provided the public with information on updates with ongoing wars in the form of physical and digital documentation. But what is not common knowledge is that not all current information is released. The Plan Operation Northwoods, a plan that would orchestrate various acts of terror on US soil in order to create a pretext for a war with Cuba in which many civilians would die was not released until years after it was pitched. In the book “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien, there are multiple stories incorporated about the Vietnam war, but what tends to confuse people throughout it is that not all of the stories told are true. Tim O’Brien said “I don’t have a daughter named Kathleen. I don’t have a daughter. I don’t have children. To my knowledge, at least, I never killed anyone. Jimmy Cross never visited me at my house in Massachusetts, because of course Jimmy Cross does not exist in the world of objects, and never did. He’s purley invented, like Marth, and like Kiowa or Mitchell Sanders and all the others.” ( Articles 1) O’Brien makes it a challenge to understand the difference between what is real and what is fiction, paralleled to war constructs of what is real and fiction.

No ones story will ever be considered the same as the others, but they can have certain situations in common. Tim O’Brien includes several emotions in his stories such as guilt, fear, intangible which helps provide meaning to each story. During World War II, it was determined that the average age of American soldiers was “mid-twenties”, and that the average age of soldiers in Vietnam was “nineteen”. (Moyer 1) The reason why they wanted young soldiers in the Vietnam war was that they were susceptible to the psychological pressures of combat. Through this information everyone believes that most of the soldiers were 19, but that it actually a myth. The average age of the soldiers was 22 years old, although there were soldiers as young as 16 years old, most of the soldiers weren’t in their teenage years. In this day in age many aspects of the military have changed. For one thing that isn’t usually brought up in conversations is that women now serve in combat roles. During the Vietnamese war approximately “11,000 women were stationed in Vietnam, where 90% of women served as military nurses”, though women also worked as physicians, air traffic controllers, intelligence officers, clerks and other positions in the U.S. Women’s Army Corps, U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines and the Army Medical Specialist Corps. ( Women 1) In November 1972 Commander Elizabeth Barrett became the first female naval line officer to hold command in a combat zone.

The information given in the book “The things they carried” is an example of deception in literature provided by the author. “It’s time to be blunt. I’m forty-three years old, true, and I’m a writer now, and a long time ago I walked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier. Almost everything else is invented.” Calling his stories “story-truth” and his non-fictional stories his “happening-truth”. (O’Brien 171) O’brien makes it difficult to tell the difference between fact and fiction. An act of deception the government had planned in a similar case was Operation Northwoods. A government plan to construct false terrorist attacks on US soil in order to create justifications to provoke war with Cuba. The plan entailed staged terrorist attacks that included the killings of innocent civilians. Some staged terrorist attacks would have included staged vessel hijackings of civilian vessels, The use of drone aircraft strikes, staged terror campaigns. The government planned on having deceived the general public in order to go to war with cuba on the grounds of terror attacks on the US through orchestrated acts of terror. The plan Operation Northwoods relied on deception in order to be able to push its purpose of having a pretext of going to war with Cuba. By having this plan come to light there is a possibility of other acts of deception the government has done by making plans not told to us. Many people have come up with conspiracy theories of what could have been government orchestrated plans and it makes you think of what is and isn’t a new Operation Northwoods. The book provides lots of examples of events in the Vietnam war that is put together in a way that makes you think the author was there experiencing those things. His deception through emotion and storytelling captivates the audience into believing his writing as the truth. One should not take single information at face value but go through avenues of information to one thing to come to a definite conclusion. The parallel between Operation Northwoods and The things they carried is in the concept of both. Using deception in order to push an agenda to one thing. Operation Northwoods constructing the acts of terror in order to have a pretext to go to war with Cuba and O’Brien bringing a wonderfully written story on experiences that never occurred.

Analyzing the details that are provided in the book “The Things They Carried” helps determine the difference between the truth and the real truth. As for the real truth Tim O’Brien does not have a 10 year old daughter or a daughter in general. In an interview that was done with Tim O’Brien and he says “The two kids that I mention aren’t physically here, there all around me and the person I have become”.( The Things 1:02-1:08) Through this, it gives readers the chance to view things from a different perspective. It doesn’t have to be the real truth to understand what the author is trying to inform readers about. In “The Things They Carried” it says “I remember his face, which was not a pretty face, because his jaw was in his throat, and I remember a feeling the burden of responsibility and grief. I blamed myself. And rightly so, because I was present. But listen. Even that story is made up”. (O’brien 171) Although it is clear that the story was made up, by wording it the way he did, he gives readers the chance to get the feeling he felt during a similar moment. Even if the story is made up the story truth is truer than the happening truth.

Through Kathleen O’Briens made up daughter provides the chance for O’Brien to consider the emotional truth of his stories and to tell the truth whether or not he did or didn’t kill a man in My Khe. The main purpose of O’Brien’s daughter Kathleen is to raise the emotional stake of O’Brien’s work. O’Brien wants his story to be told as if he were told it to his daughter, and have the same connection that he is having with her. Which builds a bond and interest towards the reading. In the beginning of the book O’Brien mentions how he spent a few days on the Canadian border, but in reality he never spent time there. “Instead, he played golf that summer in southern Minnesota, but the anxiety of having to report to his induction base a few weeks later produced a tightness in his chest similar to that felt by the fictional O’Brien, who finally decides not to dodge the draft”.(Moyer 1) Through this specific genre O’Brien is able to explore the harsh realities of war and communicate them to a wider audience, instead of just focusing on war. By relying on imaginary and dialogue, O’Brien is able to create his stories more realistic. As the author uses his own name in the book and informs readers that he did fight in the Vietnam war, it makes readers question if the book is based off of facts, making it difficult to distinguish if its fiction or nonfiction.

Through Tim O’Brien’s writing style it providers readers with the chance to devote readers to figuring out whether or not what they’re reading is fact or fiction. As for the government it can be easy for them to make secretive actions that no one would know about. By the author adding fictionalized emotional events into his stories, it provides and gives each story a deeper meaning and a clear picture of what the author is saying. And at the end of the day the story “The things they carried” should be taken as a fictional story with exaggerated details on the “truths” of war. Full information regarding Operation Northwood wasn’t released until years after it was pitched, myths regarding war or buildup for war are very easy to create and are commonly believed. Although times have changed, one should not always believe that what is written in a book to be the only truth, but instead a resource to help determine what truly happened.

Deception can come from benign or malicious reasons but they often use the same actions to get there, Tricking and manipulation others to get what they want. The plot of Much Ado About Nothing is based upon deliberate lies and deceptions to fool someone to believe something that is not true, Shakespeare uses both malevolent and benign deception on two different people. Although deception comes from the art of lying some kinds of deceptions can come from good intentions. William Shakespeare uses this logic to decipher Don John and Don Pedro’s actions as benign or malicious, by what their ideal outcome is. (edit)

It is innate in humans to lie but people who possess machiavellian qualities can do so cunningly, creating havoc, which separates the good from the bad. Don John plays an essential role for nearly all of the malicious trickery and deception in the play, Much ado about nothing. He is a catalyst and an instigator for trouble, whose only wish is to destroy the love and happiness between Claudio and Hero. Shakespeare uses foreshadowing of Don John’s villainy to display the trickery and deception, with “It better fits my blood to be disdained of all …I am a plain-dealing villain… Let me be that I am, and seek not to alter me.’ (Act I, Scene 3), He is honest about who he is and his intentions to others it is his belief that if you ate to fall for his tricks that is your fault. The first instance of trickery and deception is when Don Pedro tells Claudio that he will woo Hero for Claudio to marry her in Act I Scene I. Tricking her to believe that Don Pedro himself has feelings for Hero, ‘I will assume thy part in disguise, and tell fair Hero that I am Claudio, And in her bosom, I’ll unclasp my heart, and take her hearing prisoner with the force and strong encounter of my amorous tale. Then after, to her father will I break: and the conclusion is, she shall be thine. (Act I, Scene 1. )Shakespeare uses don john to show the difference between good and bad intention when dealing with lies and deceit. Don John uses his cunning nature to trick others into believing something else. “are you not signor benedick” (p33) he asks Claudio this because, although he knows who it is, his lie will be much more believable if it sounds like the message wasn’t meant for him. Additionally the metaphor of “medicine to my soul” exemplifies his spiteful nature, because it conveys the idea that he feels unwell when others are happy and he can only become happy if someone else is suffering from his well-executed plans.

Deceiving others is not always done with malicious intent but rather, can be motivated by good nature intention and love for someone else., Shakespeare conveys this idea in the play “Much ado about nothing” by using Don Pedro as a comparison to Don John as he believes that everyone deserves to be happy. Shakespeare displays an extended metaphor throughout the play to demonstrate his benign intentions “If we can do this, Cupid is no longer an archer his glory will be ours, for we are the only love Gods,” we as the audience now know that he is doing for love as he is comparing himself to a God who helps people, and it is his belief that he is helping everyone around him and not causing harm to anyone. Don Pedro conveys his plan to the audience so that the dramatic irony sets in “ Will in the interim undertake one of Hercules’ labours, which is to bring Signor Benedick and the Lady Beatrice into a mountain of affection the one with the other. I would fain have it a match, and I doubt not but to fashion it if you three will but minister such assistance as I shall give you direction.’ (act 1 scene 1) Don Pedro uses deception in a benign way to get together Benedick and Beatrice, because it is his belief that they will be perfect to gether but their stubbornness will stop it, he lies to his friends to get them together but it is not his intention to cause harm to anyone, that separates Don John and Don Johns personality traits. Don Pedro conveys the repeated metaphor of “If we can do this, Cupid is no longer an archer his glory will be ours, for we are the only love Gods, it is his belief that they are becoming a God and just trying to do what’s best for everyone else around them, furthermore Don john is trying to run life fr everyone else because that is what believes as just.

Deception is used to hide the truth from others to create a reality that you want, in the artwork “deception” by Jen Coffey, the theme of deception is displayed by the centrepiece of the work, a woman taking off her mask. Because of the dark hair and the lightness of the background, our eyes are drawn to the centrepiece of the artwork, a woman taking off her mask. Her mask describes the women as a caring person who was listening and sympathising with one or more of her friends, her real expression is shown as the opposite as she looks like she is plotting something big about the information that she just got, her eyes are slanted and her eyebrows are up.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary deception is ‘’the act of hiding the truth, especially to get an advantage’’. Yet according to the Merriam Webster dictionary deception is ‘’the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid’’. Although both definitions of deception have different meanings, the two can be seen in Die Verwandlung.

The theme of deception begins quite early on in Die Verwandlung. The first example is seen when Gregor wakes up to find he has been transformed into a giant, monstrous bug. ‘’»Wie wäre es, wenn ich noch ein wenig weiterschliefe und alle Narrheiten vergäße«, dachte er’’. Gregor does not believe what he is seeing. He tells himself that what has happened is merely some kind of ‘’foolishness’’. He attempts to deceive himself by believing that he has not been transformed into a bug. On the contrary, Gregor believes that his own eyes are deceiving him by showing him his own body as a vermin. Although the reader can see that Gregor is deceiving himself by not believing what has happened to him, Gregor tries to convince himself that what he sees is not reality. Gregor then tries to rationally explain why his eyes are playing this kind of trick on him. ‘’ »Ach Gott«, dachte er, »was für einen anstrengenden Beruf habe ich gewählt! … »Dies frühzeitige Aufstehen«, dachte er, »macht einen ganz blödsinnig. Der Mensch muß seinen Schlaf haben.‘‘ Gregor goes as far to blame his occupation as the reason the illogical transformation happened. He is sure that he is just so tired from the constant early risings and bad food that his mind is deceiving him and in turn, he is deceiving himself. ‘’Er erinnerte sich, … der sich dann beim Aufstehen als reine Einbildung herausstellte, und er war gespannt, wie sich seine heutigen Vorstellungen allmählich auflösen würden. Daß die Veränderung der Stimme nichts anderes war, als der Vorbote einer tüchtigen Verkühlung, einer Berufskrankheit der Reisenden, daran zweifelte er nicht im Geringsten.‘‘ Although Gregor is starting to believe what has happened to him, he is still deceiving himself by believing that he is merely unwell with a cold or a similar sickness. Gregor is trying to accept something that is false, which is of course, deception or more specifically, self-deception.

The theme continues when Gregor tries to convince himself that everything is in order as he tries to open the door to his supervisor with great difficulty. ‘’ Würden sie erschrecken, dann hatte Gregor keine Verantwortung mehr und konnte … um acht Uhr tatsächlich auf dem Bahnhof sein.‘‘ It is clear to the reader that Gregor has legitimately transformed into a cockroach like bug, but Gregor does not yet want to believe it. He continues to accept what is not true. He believes that he will genuinely be able to catch the train and return to work. Using the definition of Cambridge Dictionary, one might ask themselves how Gregor is getting an advantage by convincing himself that he has been transformed into a bug. One could say that the advantage Gregor gets is sanity. If he believes that he is still human he will remain sane, yet if he believes that he has changed overnight into an animal then he will undoubtably feel like he has gone insane. In this instance we see how deception can be depicted as something small, like a white lie rather than what one would usually see deception as, such as betrayal.

Like in the example above, Gregor again deceives himself by telling himself something that is untrue. Gregor genuinely believes that Grete is as kind to leave him eating in peace and cares enough to turn the key, so he is not disturbed. ‘’Und aus Zartgefühl, da sie wußte, daß Gregor vor ihr nicht essen würde, entfernte sich eiligst und drehte sogar den Schlüssel um, damit nur Gregor merken könne, daß er es so behaglich machen dürfe, wie er wolle.‘‘ It is clear to the reader that Grete is disgusted by Gregor and scared to leave him in the room without locking the door, yet Gregor would rather lie to and deceive himself to save his own negative feelings about the transformation.

Gregor’s father deceives the family by hiding the money that he had saved up for his own advantage. ‘’Gregor erfuhr nun zur Genüge – denn der Vater pflegte sich in seinen Erklärungen öfters zu wiederholen … Kapital angesammelt.‘‘ Gregor’s father does not tell the truth about how much money he has been saving, therefor Gregor is still encouraged to work as hard to ensure he brings home enough money for his family.

On a different note one could say that Gregor’s father throwing apples at him and critically wounding him in the back could be referencing to the story of Adam and Eve. Eve was deceived by the serpent to believe that she would become like God if she ate an apple from the forbidden tree. Adam and Eve were then banished from The Garden of Eden much like Gregor being banished from his family. On one hand Gregor’s humanity has also been terminated, yet Adam and Eve were thought to create humanity.

In conclusion, Die Verwandlung contains many different examples of deception, most of them being Gregor’s own self-deception. Yet in the end it is the book itself that deceives its readers. From the beginning the reader is sure that Die Verwandlung will be about the transformation of a human man into a monstrous bug, but that is not what the story is about. We see first-hand the transformation of a well-off family who were living comfortably and had not needed to work themselves, to then struggling financially while holding resentment towards the former bread winner. We also saw the transformation of a teenage Grete into a now matured, independent and beautiful young woman. As well as this the story is about how fragile relationships between family members can be, especially when one is making the majority unhappy. Therefor by including these subjects, the story is not only about the transformation of Gregor, but also about everyone else around him.

In the Play ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ written by one of the best English playwrights; William Shakespeare, the role of deception is an important theme that is presented frequently through the characters. The play is based upon deceptions and multiple schemes that are used to show the thoughts of nearly every character and the characters deceive themselves by putting on a different public facade instead of showing their true feelings and personalities. The play also involves a complex order of trickery to achieve a humorous effect that may portray deceit.

Deception is presented from the beginning of the play. For example, in Act 1 Scene 1 Don Pedro reassures Claudio that his interference is a great idea. “Look what will serve is fit. ‘Tis once, thou lovest, And I will fit thee with the remedy. I know we shall have reveling tonight. I will assume thy part in some disguise And tell fair Hero I am Claudio, And in her bosom I’ll unclasp my heart.” Don Pedro has offered to disguise himself as Claudio at the masked dance and woo Hero in Claudio’s place, since Claudio is clumsier with words. Even if the plan works perfectly, Hero is still falling in love with a fraud, which is in all cases wrong. Don Pedro, however, believes there is no moral issue at all as two people will be married and marriage is a good thing that’s all that matters.

Moreover, Benedick tries to present himself as a very masculine and proud man that all women are attracted to. ‘It is certain I am loved by all ladies’. When he talks about women with other male characters he proudly acts as if he does not want to get involved with women emotionally and calls himself ‘a professed tyrant to their sex’. He criticises Claudio when he falls in love stating, ‘You have no intent of turning husband do you?’ and ‘Shall I never see a bachelor of three-score again?’ although it is clear to the audience that he is concealing his true feelings. Benedick maintains the belief that ‘he will live a bachelor’, although as the play proceeds, his feelings become clear and that he is ‘horribly in love’ with Beatrice.

Beatrice and Benedick deceive each other again at the masquerade ball. While Beatrice pretends to not know that she is dancing with Benedick, she begins to insult him by calling him the “prince’s jester” and that “none but libertines delight in him”, all the while Benedick believes that he is deceiving Beatrice into thinking that he is someone else.

Meanwhile, at the same time in act 2 scene 1 where the play is set in a hall in Leonato’s house Claudio doubts Don Pedro’s loyalty aloud, having instantly believed Don John’s lie that Don Pedro intends to steal Hero’s affections. It is the night of the ball and the night Don Pedro will be wooing Hero as Claudio. ’Tis certain so, the Prince woos for himself. Friendship is constant in all other things Save in the office and affairs of love.’ Even though the play makes room for the idea that deception can be a force for good, here deception brings out the characters’ worst tendencies. Claudio’s instant is willing attack Don John because of misunderstanding the situation. This indicates a dangerous gullibility, and while Claudio initially seems like the victim here, innocent Hero is the one who will eventually suffer for Claudio’s surface-level thinking.

In continuation, after Claudio’s soliloquy of how he feels about Don Pedro wooing Hero for himself Don Pedro is suggesting a coordinated deception of his friends, but in this case, he intends to better those friends’ lives. “Claudio, the time shall not go dully by us. I will in the interim undertake one of Hercules’ labors, which is to bring Signor Benedick and the Lady Beatrice into a mountain of affection, th’ one with th’ other.” Don Pedro’s suggestion to matchmake Benedick and Beatrice presents an alternative to Don John’s scheming. Don Pedro’s plan complicates the situation of whether lying is always morally wrong. However, Beatrice and Benedick are truly happy when they admit they love each other and would likely never have done so without Don Pedro’s interference.

Near the end of the play a friar at Hero and Claudio’s wedding hopes the tragedy will spur others to drop their anger at her supposed disloyalty. “But if all aim but this be levelled false, The supposition of the lady’s death Will quench the wonder of her infamy.” Deception is shown completely through the characters’ world that even their religious officials spin elaborate lies. The friar’s plan is likely to work perfectly, because it gives emphasis on people’s tendency to pay respect to someone who has passed away. However, clever manipulation is an odd skill for a religious monk to manifest.

In conclusion, the play “Much Ado About Nothing” written by William Shakespeare triumphantly explores the ways in which deception is presented. Moreover, the play is based upon deceptions and multiple schemes that are used to show the thoughts of nearly every character and the characters deceive themselves by putting on a different public facade instead of showing their true feelings and personalities. Lastly, because the play also involves a complex order of trickery it achieves a humorous effect that may portray deceit but henceforth support that the play is an fact one of the comedic plays written by William Shakespeare.