论文部分内容阅读
Abstract
In this study， we expect to identify the relationship between self-monitor and lie detection ability under verbal condition. Specifically， we hypothesized that the ability of deception detection would be positively influenced by self-monitoring. Our study wanted to discover a strong， positive correlation between two variables， by performing our study with high school students.
The hypothesis is not found support in the results， although the correlation were in the predicted direction. Possible limitations and further improvements are in the discussion.
Introduction
We lie to everyone. “You looks beautiful today.”， said to a women who wears pajamas and did not take showers for two days. People tell a lie， for whatever purpose， is an extremely common part of daily life. Robert Feldman， psychologist from University of Massachusetts， found out the possibility of people using verbal deception when speaking to their partners in a conversation is 60 percent （1）. Ironically， people expect others to be one hundred percent sincere. However， theory that people lie detection ability is no more accurate than chance， is what consistently found out by researchers. （2） This poses an interesting question： what are some potential factors that could positively influence people’s ability to detect lies？ Self-Monitoring， we suggested. A high self-monitor is skilled impression managers with good expressive control， indicated by researchers （3）. Moreover， researchers concluded that high self-monitoring individuals seek to gain advantages through their well management of expressions（1）. These are the reasons why we ， the authors， hypothesized that people with high self-monitor would do better in lie detecting， since they are relatively more sensitive to the surrounding environment， and perhaps， people’s emotional status.
Self-monitoring is an individual’s ability of alerting their behavior according to the surround environment. （e.g. it is easier for a high self-monitor to ingratiate himself with others）. Deception detection， is one’s ability of successfully spotting a liar by observing others facial expressions， identifying behavioral clues， and so on.
Method
This experiment is conducted at a summer camp in Beijing， named Special A. Students attending this summer camp are teenagers ranging from age 15 to 19. Due to a dramatic difference between the male and female population in the class， collected data is more limited to female. Subjects：
we randomly selected 36 students to conduct the experiment； all of them are from Special A. The majority of them are from psychology class， although they would not be considered as receiving credits because we did this experiment when the class just started.
Materials：
To conduct this experiment， we previously collected self-monitoring score from experimenters and prepared a survey for each individual. The survey is related to a deception detection game that we prepared to have the experimenters to participate. The game required ten volunteers to get up in front； each of the volunteer would see a slide with or without a picture and there are total of ten slides. If the volunteer sees a slide with a picture， they would have to simply describe the picture. Conversely， if they do not see the picture， they would have to describe a picture they make up in their mind. Experimenters have to decide whether is a truth or lie and answer it in survey. The survey contains twelve questions， two of them asks about the experimenters pre and post confidence about their judgment， rates are out of 10， and ten of the questions are asked about the experimenters’ judgement. Each volunteer are spoken one time and they are not allowed to repeat what they said.
Limitations
In this experiment， we have a small sample（n=36） and it will decrease the statistical power of our study. We already considered the sample size before the study and decided to do the pilot experiment. Thus， the study is still significant to test the feasibility of our hypothesis. Another limitation is that， due to the dramatic difference between the male and female population （male=4， female=32）， we have to limit our study only to female.
A correlation test is performed on two factors： the experimenters’ lie detection accuracy and their self-monitoring score. We found a significant effect with p<0.01 [N=36]. Disapproving our hypothesis， a moderate， positive linear relationship was obtained （r=0.3246）.
Discussion
Our hypothesis is not support in the results， however， the results indicate a moderate， positive relationship between two variables. As discussed previously， we have a really small sample， which means it is expected to get a small correlation. Under this condition， we still conducted a relatively positive relationship， which led us to believe that we might get a strong correlation to prove our hypothesis in further study， if we perform it on a large population scale covering both female and male. Overall， the results was expected due to the limitationS we have. But the future study is possible to perform on a large sample scale and we provided a feasible test method.
Acknowledgement
The method we used to test the correlation between deception detection and self-monitoring is supported by Professor Menon Tanya. We would like to thank Professor Menon Tanya for her of inestimable guidance on this study，
References
1. Robert Feldman et al.， Self-Presentation and Verbal Deception： Do Self-Presenters Lie More？ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.
2. Laura Zimmerman， Deception detection. American Psychological Association. March 2016.
3. DePaulo， B. M.，
In this study， we expect to identify the relationship between self-monitor and lie detection ability under verbal condition. Specifically， we hypothesized that the ability of deception detection would be positively influenced by self-monitoring. Our study wanted to discover a strong， positive correlation between two variables， by performing our study with high school students.
The hypothesis is not found support in the results， although the correlation were in the predicted direction. Possible limitations and further improvements are in the discussion.
Introduction
We lie to everyone. “You looks beautiful today.”， said to a women who wears pajamas and did not take showers for two days. People tell a lie， for whatever purpose， is an extremely common part of daily life. Robert Feldman， psychologist from University of Massachusetts， found out the possibility of people using verbal deception when speaking to their partners in a conversation is 60 percent （1）. Ironically， people expect others to be one hundred percent sincere. However， theory that people lie detection ability is no more accurate than chance， is what consistently found out by researchers. （2） This poses an interesting question： what are some potential factors that could positively influence people’s ability to detect lies？ Self-Monitoring， we suggested. A high self-monitor is skilled impression managers with good expressive control， indicated by researchers （3）. Moreover， researchers concluded that high self-monitoring individuals seek to gain advantages through their well management of expressions（1）. These are the reasons why we ， the authors， hypothesized that people with high self-monitor would do better in lie detecting， since they are relatively more sensitive to the surrounding environment， and perhaps， people’s emotional status.
Self-monitoring is an individual’s ability of alerting their behavior according to the surround environment. （e.g. it is easier for a high self-monitor to ingratiate himself with others）. Deception detection， is one’s ability of successfully spotting a liar by observing others facial expressions， identifying behavioral clues， and so on.
Method
This experiment is conducted at a summer camp in Beijing， named Special A. Students attending this summer camp are teenagers ranging from age 15 to 19. Due to a dramatic difference between the male and female population in the class， collected data is more limited to female. Subjects：
we randomly selected 36 students to conduct the experiment； all of them are from Special A. The majority of them are from psychology class， although they would not be considered as receiving credits because we did this experiment when the class just started.
Materials：
To conduct this experiment， we previously collected self-monitoring score from experimenters and prepared a survey for each individual. The survey is related to a deception detection game that we prepared to have the experimenters to participate. The game required ten volunteers to get up in front； each of the volunteer would see a slide with or without a picture and there are total of ten slides. If the volunteer sees a slide with a picture， they would have to simply describe the picture. Conversely， if they do not see the picture， they would have to describe a picture they make up in their mind. Experimenters have to decide whether is a truth or lie and answer it in survey. The survey contains twelve questions， two of them asks about the experimenters pre and post confidence about their judgment， rates are out of 10， and ten of the questions are asked about the experimenters’ judgement. Each volunteer are spoken one time and they are not allowed to repeat what they said.
Limitations
In this experiment， we have a small sample（n=36） and it will decrease the statistical power of our study. We already considered the sample size before the study and decided to do the pilot experiment. Thus， the study is still significant to test the feasibility of our hypothesis. Another limitation is that， due to the dramatic difference between the male and female population （male=4， female=32）， we have to limit our study only to female.
A correlation test is performed on two factors： the experimenters’ lie detection accuracy and their self-monitoring score. We found a significant effect with p<0.01 [N=36]. Disapproving our hypothesis， a moderate， positive linear relationship was obtained （r=0.3246）.
Discussion
Our hypothesis is not support in the results， however， the results indicate a moderate， positive relationship between two variables. As discussed previously， we have a really small sample， which means it is expected to get a small correlation. Under this condition， we still conducted a relatively positive relationship， which led us to believe that we might get a strong correlation to prove our hypothesis in further study， if we perform it on a large population scale covering both female and male. Overall， the results was expected due to the limitationS we have. But the future study is possible to perform on a large sample scale and we provided a feasible test method.
Acknowledgement
The method we used to test the correlation between deception detection and self-monitoring is supported by Professor Menon Tanya. We would like to thank Professor Menon Tanya for her of inestimable guidance on this study，
References
1. Robert Feldman et al.， Self-Presentation and Verbal Deception： Do Self-Presenters Lie More？ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.
2. Laura Zimmerman， Deception detection. American Psychological Association. March 2016.
3. DePaulo， B. M.，