The effect of lying upon foot and leg movement

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1977, Vol. 10 (6), 451-453 The effect of lying upon foot and leg movement SANDRA M. SCHNEIDER and B. L. KINTZ Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington 98225 A video camera was used to record foot and leg movements of 14 male and 16 female students while (1) engaged in normal conversation with a confederate and (2) while lying to the confederate. Changes in the amount of foot and leg movement when changing from Situation 1 to Situation 2 constituted the experimental data. Both female and male students showed marked changes in foot and leg movement when lying. The changes were of two kinds: more movement while lying or less movement while lying. There was no obvious explanation for which people would move either more or less or why a person would adopt one mode of change rather than the other. Hartshorne and May (I928) concluded that lying by children is more a function of the situation than of the individual. Most children will lie under certain conditions, few will lie under certain other conditions. Kintz (I975), using a questionnaire similar to that of Hartshorne and May, found that college students who scored high in "lying" responded more quickly and made more incorrect responses on a verbal learning task than those with low "lying" scores. These results suggest that, under some conditions at least, there is a detectable characteristic of lying. Christie and Geis (1970) have developed a trait theory about a personality characteristic which they call "Machiavellianism." High-Mach persons are characterized as being manipulators, leaders, and individualists. They are reluctant to cheat at the behest of others, but do so whenever they themselves deem it to be desirable. Exline, Thibaut, Hickey, and Gumpert (1970) found that, when caught cheating, high-Mach persons more vigorously denied any wrongdoing than did the low-Mach individuals. The data have not been unanimous in showing a tendency toward lying as being a quantifiable trait. Matarazzo, Wien, Jackson, and Manaugh (1970) measured the amount of speech uttered by persons when lying or not. They found no difference in the mean amounts of speech. Matarazzo et al. also found no differences between liars and truth tellers in the amount of eye contact. However, Burns and Kintz (1976) found an interaction in the eye-contact measure between the sex of the subjects and lying. Males increased their eye contact while lying, but the females' eye contact decreased. The overall eye-contact time was about the same for the lying vs. truth-telling conditions, but the pattern for males differed from that of females. Ekman and Friesen (1969) suggested that a fertile field for lying research would be in the ways in which foot and leg movements betray lying. Most people learn to control speech patterns and facial movements in social situations. Even the hands are carefully monitored to that no obvious movements will correlate with a lie. But the feet and legs are pretty much out of sight 451 and out of consciousness, and therefore may more accurately portray the emotions that are involved with lying. The present experiment was designed to investigate whether foot and leg movements would change as a function of the two variables: sex and lying. METHOD Subjects The subjects were 14 male and 16 female students enrolled in introductory psychology courses at Western Washington University. Apparatus A televesion camera was placed in a room adjacent to the experimental room. The interactions between the student and a confederate were videotaped through a one-way mirror. Procedure The student subject and the experimenter's assistant arrived at the experimental room together. The student was directed to sit in a chair visible through the one-way mirror; the confederate was instructed to sit in a chair facing the student. After a few minutes of conversation intended to put the student at ease, both were informed of the research task. They were asked to try to remember the plots, main characters, and the actors of some recent movies they had seen. After making sure that they understood the request and felt ready, they were instructed to begin. The period of interaction was taped to establish a baseline rate of foot and leg movement with which to compare a later 3min period when the student would be lying to the confederate. The assistant attempted to structure the conversation so that the student was speaking at least 50% of the time. There was a series of predetermined questions to help the confederate stimulate the conversation in case the student was not very talkative. After 3 min of taping had been completed, the student was allowed to overhear a conversation between the experimenter and confederate, to the effect that another reel of tape would be needed. The confederate was sent on the errand to get the tape. The student was told that the real purpose of the discussion was to get rid of the other "student" so that the experimenter could complete the preparations. "This time I want you to lie to the other person so that I can observe bodily reactions to your lies. I want to determine if I can tell if the person is at all aware of the fact that you are not telling the truth. I want you to keep discussing movies and to insert lies into your discussion. Try to 452 SCHNEIDER AND KINTZ make sure that your lies will not be detected, that is, don't be obvious about it. Express opinions that you do not really feel, but be careful that the opinions are not too different from those already expressed. Or you can make up the plot of a movie that you have seen." After insuring that the students understood the request, they were helped to decide in what way they would lie. After giving the students a few minutes to decide whether or not to comply with the request, they were encouraged to practice the lies before the assistant arrived. After giving the students another few minutes of preparation, and after all of their questions had been answered, the confederate returned to the experimental room. No student refused to lie during the second interval, although some individuals asked several questions. While the students were lying, the confederate acted doubtful about the validity of some of the students' statements by asking probing questions, raising eyebrows, and laughing at the more ridiculous lies. The purpose was to keep the students aware of the fact that they were lying and to try to get them to work hard at being believed. After the second interview, both of the "subjects" were debriefed. Because it was important that the real reason for the experiment be kept secret from future students, it was explained that no more information about the experiment could be furnished at that time. They were asked not to discuss the experiment with any other students so that future subjects would enter the experiment with no knowledg~ of it beforehand. They they were given a telephone number and address so (...truncated)