Name: Orlan A.

Burato Block-1
BS-Criminology 3rd Yr. DATE :
02/06/2021

History of Early Method Detecting Deception

From the time of Christ through the Middle Ages, methods for detecting
deception were various ordeals that assumed divine intervention to establish
innocence or guilt. The first attempt to use a scientific instrument to detect
deception occurred around 1895, when Lombroso applied a blood pressure
instrument hydrosphygmograp to criminal suspects. In 1921, John Larson
developed a machine that was capable of recording physiological responses to
questioning during an entire examination period. The polygraph instrument and
techniques have improved substantially in the past 60 years; their effectiveness
depends on training in interview techniques and a knowledge of psychology and
psychophysiology. Another mechanical instrument currently used to detect
deception is the Psychological Stress Evaluation (introduced in the 1970’s),
which measures human stress by analyzing the voice. Drugs, such as sodium
pentothal and sodium amytal, have also been used in efforts to obtain truth and
expose deception, but their reliability is highly questionable, except to obtain
supplementary information on a person’s psychological makeup. Hypnosis has
been used to facilitate recall and also to determine the truth and falsity of
statements, but because persons under hypnosis are highly susceptible to
suggestion, its reliability in exposing deception is questionable. Word
association has also been used to detect deception under the assumption that a
guilty person will attempt to avoid replying with words that may be associated
with the crime. Certain personality tests may expose proneness to crime;
however, they do not specifically score or detect lying, although the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory does have a built-in instrument designed to
detect deception on the test. Interviewers skilled in observing physical,
emotional, and mental manifestations of the person being questioned can pick up
many clues in these areas that a person is lying. None of the proponents of the
various techniques for detecting deception claim 100 percent accuracy. All of the
methods must still rely on human judgments and integrity, thus remaining
vulnerable to human fallibility. Seventeen footnotes and 17 bibliographic entries
are provided
There have been many theories about detecting deception. Some of
the more interesting ones include the following:

 In ancient Babylon 3,000 years ago, it was believed that a liar would look at
the ground and rub his or her big toe around in a circle.
 The Prophet Isaiah believed that you could look in people’s faces and tell
whether or not they were telling the truth.
 The Ancient Chinese believed that the food in someone’s mouth would
remain dry if they were telling a lie.
 Native Americans would place a hot knife blade on the suspect’s tongue. If
it stuck the person was being deceptive.
 An Italian, Lombroso, theorized that when you put a liar’s hand in a jar
filled with fluid it would overflow as the volume of the hand increased due
to rising blood pressure.

History

The idea lying produces side-effects has long been claimed. In West Africa
persons suspected of a crime were made to pass a bird’s egg to one another. If a
person broke the egg, then he or she was considered guilty, based on the idea
that their nervousness was to blame. In ancient China the suspect held a handful
of rice in his or mouth during a prosecutor’s speech. Since salvation was
believed to cease at times of emotional anxiety, the person was considered guilty
if by the end of that speech the rice was dry.

Since time immemorial, lying has been a part of everyday life. For this reason, it
has become a subject of interest in several disciplines, including psychology.
The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of the literature and
thinking to date about the evolution of lie detection techniques. The first part
explores ancient methods recorded circa 1000 B.C. God’s judgment in Europe.
The second part describes technical methods based on sciences such as
phrenology, polygraph and graphology. This is followed by an outline of more
modern-day approaches such as FACS (Facial Action Coding System), functional
MRI, and Brain Fingerprinting. Finally, after the familiarization with the historical
development of techniques for lie detection, we discuss the scope for new
initiatives not only in the area of designing new methods, but also for the
research into lie detection itself, such as its motives and regulatory issues related
to deception.

While historians are not entirely sure where or when deception detection
practices originated, it is clear that humans have been trying to figure out how to
tell if someone is lying for centuries. 
Fortunately, the methodologies have evolved drastically over time, shifting first
from non-scientific testing Trials to more biologically-oriented ones (i.e.,
phrenology and graphology). Today’s deception detection generally combines
behavioral psychology human observation and technology (i.e. polygraphs and
artificial intelligence). 
Dr. Ekman’s work in the field of deception detection largely focuses on nonverbal
communication of emotion observed in the face and body.

Early Methods of detecting deception

 Trial Combat
 Trial by Ordeal
 Trial by Iron Hot Ordeal
 Ordeal by balance
 Ordeal of Rice Chewing
 Donkey’s Tall Ordeal

The Early scientific Person Method Contribute of detecting

Deception
In 1895 Cesare Lombroso, an italian scientist employed the first instrument to
detect deception. Hydrosphymograph, measured changes in pulse and blood
pressure when suspects were questioned about their involvement of a specific
offense.

1914 Vittorio Benussi successfully detected deception with a Pneumograph an

instrument that graphically measures an examinee’s inhalation. Benussi this
demonstrated that changes in breathing patterns accompany deception.

1917 Further research by William Marston the dealt with the Sphygmomanometer
which was used to obtain periodic discontinues blood pressure readings during
course of an examination

1920 A device t recording blood-pressure and galvanic skin response was

invented in 1920 by Dr. John A. Larson and first applied in law enforcement work
by the Berkeley Police Department under it’s nationally renowned police chief
August Vollmer.

The Early Scientific Method of detecting Deception

Polygraph is an instrument for the recording of changes in blood pressure; pulse
rate, respiration and skin resistance as indication of emotional disturbances
especially if lying when questioned. The word was derived from the word POLY
means “many” and Graphs means writing chart.

Polygraphy it is the scientific method of detecting deception, using a polygraph

machine.

Deception it is an act of discovery of existence, presence of fact or something

hidden or obscure.

Detection is an act of discovery of existence, presence of fact or something

hidden or obscure.

Deception detection refers to the investigative practices used to determine a

person’s truthfulness and credibility. This is largely determined through the
consideration of certain behavioral and physiological cues as well as larger
contextual and situational information.

The challenges of deception detection

There is no single, definitive sign of deceit itself; no muscle twitch, facial

expression, or gesture proves that a person is lying with absolute certainty.
Therefore, most modern-day methods of deception detection heavily rely on a
variety of methods to collect, analyze and interpret emotional and physiological
data.

The Scientific Contributions

Cesare Lombroso first person create scientific instrument in defecting deception

measuring blood pressure and pulse rate.

Angelo Mosso he stated that FEAR influenced the heart and could be use as a
basis for detecting deception. He uses sphygmanometer and scientific radio
study fear.

While historians are not entirely sure where or when deception detection
practices originated, it is clear that humans have been trying to figure out how to
tell if someone is lying for centuries.

Fortunately, the methodologies have evolved drastically over time, shifting first
from non-scientific testing Trials to more biologically-oriented ones phrenology
and graphology. Today’s deception detection generally combines behavioral
psychology human observation and technology polygraphs and artificial
intelligence.
Dr. Ekman’s work in the scientific field of deception detection largely focuses on
nonverbal communication of emotion observed in the face and body

Many observable signs have been linked to lying, but they are not always shown
by everyone. The absence of these signals does not mean a person is truthful,
but their presence, especially when there are multiple signs, is very suggestive of
potential deceit.

However, any data collected merely expose emotional clues that may or may not
be related to deception. For example, sweaty palms during a job interview could
indicate an interviewee’s fear of being caught in a lie about their qualifications.
Or, sweaty palms could be illustrating their fear that the interviewer won’t believe
their qualifications despite being totally honest on their resume. Or, their palms
could be sweaty because they’re worried about something else entirely, like a
sick child at home.

There are still many more possible reasons why a person might experience
sweating palms, especially during high stakes scenarios. To determine the actual
cause, further investigation and analysis is needed. Jumping to conclusions,
while easy to do, can be harmful to everyone involved and must be avoided.

An invaluable aspect in deception detection is first establishing a “baseline”, or

behavior considered to be “normal” for the individual in question. The basic
process of behavioral deception detection then involves looking for clues that
signal some kind of change or deviation from this baseline. These can be noticed
through “hot spots” across a number of different observable channels such as:
facial expressions, body language, voice, verbal style and verbal content.

Do lie detectors actually as scientific methods.

The polygraph lie detector works on the same principles as detecting behavioral
betrayals of deceit, and it is vulnerable to the same problems. The polygraph
exam does not detect lies, just signs of emotion and requires further
investigation.

Many observable signs have been linked to lying, but they are not always shown
by everyone. The absence of these signals does not mean a person is truthful,
but their presence, especially when there are multiple signs, is very suggestive of
potential deceit.