History of Deception Detection

Brief History of Deception Detection

• Historically, methods for determining truthfulness involved superstition or religious beliefs.
• While some methods incorporated psychological and physiological principles, reliability was inconsistent.

Early Methods: Ordeals and Trial by Combat

• Ordeals and trial by combat served as methods to determine guilt or innocence.
• Ordeals involved subjecting the accused to physical tests, like walking on hot coals or immersion in scalding water, with the outcome considered a divine judgment.
• Trial by combat, also known as "Trial by Strength" involved two individuals claiming innocence engaging in combat, with the victor declared innocent and the loser guilty.
• In medieval times, knights engaged in mortal combat to settle disputes between lords, believing the outcome was determined by "Divine Intervention."
• This method was based on the idea that fighting skill was unrelated to truthfulness.

Trial by Ordeal (1938)

• Similar to ancient ordeals, relied on the assumption that God would intervene for the innocent.
• Rooted in religious beliefs, it also had practical observations of psychological and physiological phenomena.

Historical Practices and Scenarios

• Red Hot Iron Ordeal: In Rajhmal, North Bengal, a theft suspect touches a red-hot iron three times; burns on the tongue signify guilt.
• Ordeal by the Balance: Along the Ganges River, a fisherman accused of cheating is weighed on a balance scale; being lighter than added weights proves innocence.
• Boiling Water Ordeal: In an African village, a theft suspect plunges an arm into boiling water; absence of blisters indicates truthfulness.
• Ordeal by Rice Chewing: An Indian man accused of lying chews specially prepared rice; distress signs or blood indicate he is lying.
• Ordeal of the Red Water: Among Eastern African tribes, a sorcery suspect must fast and drink a dark emetic; vomiting more than the rice consumed signifies guilt.
• Combination of Drinks and Food Ordeal: In a West African village, a woman accused of witchcraft faces an arduous challenge involving fasting and drinking concoctions.
• Trial by Combat: In ancient India, two warriors duel over honor and theft accusations; the victor determines guilt.
• Trial by Torture: An accused criminal undergoes physical torments, such as binding and beating; the ability to withstand the pain signifies innocence.
• Drinking Ordeal: In ancient Nigeria, a priest offers a herbal concoction; survival equates to innocence, while death signifies divine justice.
• Trial of the Eucharist: In medieval Europe, a clergyman accused of corruption partakes in the Eucharist; inability to swallow the host implies guilt via divine intervention.
• Ordeal of Heat and Fire: In early Scandinavia, a woman accused of witchcraft walks barefoot across burning coals; remaining unburned affirms innocence.
• Ordeal of Boiling Oil or Water: In an Asian village, a man accused of treachery retrieves stones from boiling oil; emerging unscathed signifies innocence.
• Ordeal of Red-Hot Needle: In an East African village, a woman suspected of malevolence endures a red-hot needle piercing through her lip; bloodshed marks her as a liar.
• Ordeal of the Tiger: In Thailand, a man and woman accused of wrongdoing are placed in a cage with a tiger; surviving unharmed signifies innocence.
• Test of the Cross Ordeal: In medieval Europe, two accused thieves stand with crossed arms for hours; the one enduring longest is deemed truthful.
• Donkey's Tail Ordeal: In a remote village, a donkey's negative reaction to the accused is interpreted as a sign of guilt.

Countries that Practiced Ordeal

• Burma (Myanmar): Accuser and accused were given and lit identical candles simultaneously; the one whose candle burned faster was dishonest
• Borneo: Disputants were presented with shellfish on a plate and irritating fluid poured on the shellfish; the litigant whose shellfish moved first was the winner and truthful.
• Greece: Suspects gather under a jury while an axe would be suspended and spun; whoever the axe pointed at would be determined guilty.
• Nigeria: A priest used a greased feather to pierce the tongue of the accused so that if it passed through easily, she would be deemed innocent; pouring corrosive liquid into the eyes of the accused expecting that only the innocent would suffer no harm; pouring boiling oil over someone's hand so that if they emerged unscathed, they were considered innocent, even in the face of public opinion

Europe and Early United States (17th Century)

• The Trial by water used against those accused of witchcraft.
• Accusers would be bound, hand and foot then cast into a nearby river
• Sinking meant you were "innocent" and floating signified guilt, leading to execution.

Early Methods of Detecting Deception

• Hypnotism: Developed in 1778 by Franz Mesmer, involves inducing a trance-like state. Its reliability and admissibility are questionable due to the risk of suggestion and fabrication.
• Word Association Test: Introduced in 1879 by Sir Francis Galton, involves responding to a list of words with the first word that comes to mind. Associations can reveal hidden thoughts or emotions.
• Truth Serum Method: Developed by Edward Mandel House, administering Byosine Hydrobromide to induce delirium, making the person more likely to reveal hidden information, but the results are not admissible in court due to the involuntary process.
• Narco-analysis/Narco-synthesis: Administering Sodium Amytal or Sodium Pentothal to induce relaxation, making the person more likely to reveal information.
• Intoxication: Using alcohol to loosen inhibitions and reveal information. Evidence is considered questionable and is inadmissible.

Common Issues With Early Methods

• Lack of scientific acceptance and reliability
• Risk of suggestion and fabrication
• Involuntary nature of the process
• Unreliable results
• Limited admissibility in court

Modern Lie Detection Technologies

• Modern methods such as polygraph testing and behavioral analysis have replaced older deception detection techniques.
• Electroencephalography (EEG): Measures brain activity using electrodes on the scalp, detecting when a person recognizes meaningful information (e.g., crime scene photos).
• Eye-Tracking: Developed as an alternative to polygraphs, it focuses on cognitive reactions such as pupil dilation, response time, reading time and error rates.
• It captures data indicating that lying requires more mental effort, such as changes in pupil size and longer response times.
• It is cheaper, quicker, and requires no physical connection to equipment.

Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE)

• Assesses lying by analyzing stress in a person's voice which captures audible voice frequencies and inaudible fluctuations caused by muscle movements.
• Testing procedure involves collaboration with the requesting party, a pre-test interview, a recorded oral test, analysis of answers, and a potential retest if stress is indicated.
• The PSE does not directly detect deception but assesses physiological reactions.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)

• It is a technique that measures brain activity by detecting changes in oxygen levels as different areas of the brain are used during tasks, also know as the Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) response.
• Developed by Raymond Damadian and his team, it provides real-time, 3-D images of the human body.
• Identifies deceit at its source, unlike traditional polygraphs. Lying activates specific areas of the brain.

Scientifically Accepted Method of Detecting Deception

• In the 19th century, Dr. Hans Gross viewed the uncovering of lies as a central challenge in criminal investigations.
• Researchers developed scientific methods for detecting deception, leading to the creation of the polygraph.
• This instrument measures physiological responses like heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration to identify signs of deception during questioning.
• The polygraph has become a widely used tool in lie detection efforts.