Detecting Deception Reading Answers

Jan 10, 2023

Detecting Deception Reading Answers contains a write up about the deception detecting. Detecting Deception Reading Answers contains a total of 8 paragraphs. Related to the paragraphs are 13 questions. Candidates in this IELTS Section will be shown various question types with clear instructions. The paragraph contains research on spotting liars. The facial expression while lying.

Detecting Deception Reading Answers is an IELTS Reading passage which comprises two types of questions: Answer the question and yes/no and not given. To answer the questions the answer should not exceed more than two words. The statements are to be answered as yes which means true and no which means contradictory. Some information might not be provided which has to be stated not given. The candidates must read the paragraph thoroughly. The interpretation of each paragraph and an understanding of each is a must.To gain proficiency, candidates can practice from IELTS reading practice test.

Check: Get 10 Free IELTS Sample Papers
Check: Register for IELTS Coaching - Join for Free Trial Class Now

Section 1

Read the Passage to Answer the Following Questions

Detecting Deception Reading Answers

DETECTING DECEPTION

According to lay theory there exist three core basic signs for spotting liars. These are speaking quickly and excessive fluctuations in pitch of voice, the liar becoming fidgety and hesitant when questioned on detail, and failure to make eye-contact. There is nothing too perplexing about that. Yet, a good liar will be just as aware of these as the person they’re lying to and thus will ensure that eye contact especially is evident. Shifty eyes can indicate that someone is feeling emotional perhaps from a lie, or perhaps just from nerves as a result of lying. Of course, this does not apply to instances where eye contact is non-existent, like during a telephone conversation. Psychologist Paul Eckman states that extensive use of details can make lies more believable. But they can also often trip up the liar. If the details change or contradict each other, you should suspect you’re being had.
There exists an intrinsic link between emotional connections and effective lying. The notion is that it is harder to lie to those whom we know well and care for. There are two reasons for this: firstly, those close to us are more aware of our mannerisms and behavioral patterns and can more readily detect our default lying techniques. The second reason is that people we don’t know lack the emotional response that people we are close to have regarding lying. Robert Galatzer-Levy, MD, a psychoanalyst in private practice, reasons that, “The good liar doesn’t feel bad or have a guilty conscience, so it’s much more difficult to pick up on cues that they are lying.” This is why it is apparently so easy for salesmen and politicians alike to lie so effortlessly.
Recently a lot of politicians have been making outrageous claims about their ability to tell when a person is lying. Many lay people apparently believe that people can make a pretty good assessment of when a person is lying or not. Research illustrates, however, that nothing could be further from the truth.
University of Maryland professor, Patricia Wallace, an expert on deception detection states, “Psychological research on deception shows that most of us are poor judges of truthfulness and this applies even to professionals such as police and customs inspectors whose jobs are supposed to include some expertise at lie detection.” She then goes on to describe two of the many experiments in the psychological research literature which support this contention.
The first study was conducted in 1987 and looked at whether police officers could be trained to detect deceptive eye witness statements. They watched videotaped statements of witnesses, some of whom were truthful and others who were not. They were told to pay close attention to non-verbal cues, such as body movements and posture, gestures, and facial expressions. They were also instructed to pay attention to the tempo and pitch of voices. In the end, however, the officers did only slightly better than chance at determining whether the witnesses were being truthful. And the more confident the officer was of his or her judgment, the more likely he or she was to be wrong.
Airline customs inspectors, whose very job is to try and determine suspiciousness and lying, and lay people were used in another experiment. The inspectors and lay people in this experiment weren’t given any specific training or instructions on what to look for. They were simply told to judge the truthfulness of mock inspection interviews viewed on videotape and determine whether the passenger was carrying contraband and lying about it. The “passengers” being interviewed were actually paid volunteers whose job it was to try and fool the inspectors. Neither lay people nor inspectors did much better than chance. When questioned about what types of signs they looked for to determine lying behavior, the inspectors and lay people relied largely on preconceived notions about liars in general: liars will give short answers, volunteer extra information, show poor eye contact and nervous movements and evade questions.
What nearly all deception experiments have in common to date is that they use videotape instead of live people in their design. Some might argue that it is this very difference which politicians and others are trying to emphasize. This is that people can’t tell when people are lying on videotape but can when the person is there, live, in front of them. Without research teasing out these subtle differences, however, it would be a leap of logic to simply assume that something is missing in a videotaped interview. This is a seemingly baseless assumption. A person interviewed on videotape is very much live to the people doing the interviewing. It is simply a recording of a live event. While there may be differences, we simply don’t know that any indeed exist. Without that knowledge, anyone who claims to know is simply speaking from ignorance or prejudice.
The conclusions from this research are obvious. Trained professionals and untrained lay people, in general, cannot tell when a person is lying. If you’ve known someone for years, your chances for detecting truthfulness are likely higher, but strangers trying to guess truthfulness in other strangers will do no better than chance in their accuracy.

Section 2

Solution and Explanation

Questions 15 – 20

Do the following statements reflect the views of the writer in Reading Passage 2? In boxes 15 – 20 on your answer sheet write:

YES if the statement agrees with the information
NO if the statement contradicts the statement
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this in the passage

Tactics that liars use to trick people frequently give them away.

Answer: Yes
Supporting Statement: Psychologist Paul Eckman states that extensive use of details can make lies more believable. But they can also often trip up the liar. If the details change or contradict each other, you should suspect you’re being had.
Keywords: details, extensive use
Keyword Location: Paragraph 1
Explanation: According to the words that follow in Paragraph 1 Psychologist Paul Eckman claims that a lot of details might help a lie seem more plausible. However, they frequently catch the liar off guard. You should be suspicious that you're being duped if the specifics vary or conflict. This shows that the tricks used by liars to deceive people often expose them. So, Yes is the solution.

Good liars show less emotional response to the fact that they are lying.

Answer: Yes
Supporting Statement: The good liar doesn’t feel bad or have a guilty conscience, so it’s much more difficult to pick up on cues that they are lying.
Keywords: good liar, guilty conscience
Keyword Location: Paragraph 2
Explanation: The good liar doesn't feel awful or have a guilty conscience, therefore it's harder to pick up on indications that they are lying, according to paragraph 2. This suggests that honest liars react less emotionally to the realization that they are lying. So,Yes is the solution.

In the two experiments described in the text, the police performed better than the airline customs inspectors.

Answer: Not Given
Explanation: There has been no information provided in the paragraph associated with the question statement. So, the answer is Not Given.

The preparation for both experiments described in the text were very similar.

Answer: No
Supporting Statement: they watched videotaped statements of witnesses, some of whom were truthful and others who were not. The inspectors and lay people in this experiment weren’t given any specific training or
instructions on what to look for.
Keywords: Experiment, instructions
Keyword Location: Paragraph 5 and 6
Explanation:As per paragraph 5 and 6 neither the inspectors nor the lay participants in this experiment involving airline customs inspectors had any particular instruction or instructions on what to look for. They were only instructed to assess the veracity of practice inspection interviews played back on videotape as well as determine whether the customer was lying about having contraband on them. This suggests that the two experiments were distinct from one another. The answer is therefore no.

Not looking people in the eye was one technique used by the airline customs inspectors to help successfully spot liars.

Answer: No
Supporting Statement: When questioned about what types of signs they looked for to determine lying behavior, the inspectors and lay people relied largely on preconceived notions about liars in general: liars will give short
answers, volunteer extra information, show poor eye contact and nervous movements and evade questions.
Keywords: Poor eye contact
Keyword Location: Paragraph 6
Explanation: As per paragraph 6 When asked what kinds of signs they looked for to identify lying behavior, the inspectors and lay people largely relied on preconceived opinions about deceivers in general: liars will offer a brief answers, volunteer extra information, show poor eye contact and nervous movements, and evade questions, according to the following lines from Paragraph 6. This implies that the inspectors looked people in the eyes to identify liars. The answer is therefore no.

Patricia Wallace has carried out at least two deception experiments.

Answer: Not Given
Explanation: There has been no information provided in the paragraph associated with the question statement. So, the answer is Not Given.

Questions 21 – 24

Complete each of the following statements (Questions 21 – 24) with words taken from Reading Passage 2.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS for each answer. Write your answers in boxes 21 – 24 on your answer sheet.

It has been put forward that politicians use the ————- between speaking live and on television to help them fool people.

Answer: Subtle Differences
Supporting Statement: Without research teasing out these subtle differences, however, it would be a leap of logic to simply assume that something is missing in a videotaped interview.
Keywords: logic, videotaped, subtle differences
Keyword Location: Paragraph 7
Explanation: As per paragraph 7, it would be a leap of logic to merely presume that something is lacking in a videotaped interview without research pointing out these minute discrepancies. This implies that politicians deceive the public by using the minute variations between speaking in person and speaking on television. So, small differences are the answer.

Liars are often ————- the things that people look for in liars.

Answer: Aware of
Supporting Statement: Yet, a good liar will be just as aware of these as the person they’re lying to and thus will ensure that eye contact especially is evident.
Keywords: good liar, eye contact
Keyword Location: Paragraph 1
Explanation: As per paragraph 1, a competent liar will be just as aware of these as the person they're lying to and will therefore make sure that eye contact in particular is obvious. This shows that liars are frequently conscious of the characteristics that people seek in liars. The answer is thus aware of.

Two vocal clues that policemen listened for in their experiment were ————-.

Answer: Tempo and pitch
Supporting Statement: They were also instructed to pay attention to the tempo and pitch of voices.
Keywords: instructed, pay attention, tempo and pitch
Keyword Location: Paragraph 5
Explanation: As per paragraph 5, they were also told to pay attention to the speed and pitch of voices. This suggests that speed and pitch were the two vocal cues that the policeman in the experiment listened for. The answer is therefore tempo and pitch.

————- were used to try and fool the airline customs inspectors and lay people.

Answer: Paid Volunteers
Supporting Statement: The “passengers” being interviewed were actually paid volunteers whose job it was to try and fool the inspectors.
Keywords: passengers, paid volunteers, inspectors
Keyword Location: Paragraph 6
Explanation: The "passengers" being questioned were essentially paid volunteers whose duty it was to try to trick the inspectors, according to the following paragraph from Paragraph 6. This demonstrates unequivocally that paid volunteers were employed to try to deceive laypeople and airline customs officers. The solution is therefore paid volunteers.

Questions 25 – 27

Using NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS OR A NUMBER from Reading Passage 2, answer the following questions.

Write your answers in boxes 25 – 27 on your answer sheet.

Apart from television, what example does the text give of conversation when people don’t look each other in the eye?

Answer: Telephone Conversation
Supporting Statement: Of course, this does not apply to instances where eye contact is non-existent, like during a telephone conversation.
Keywords: eye contact, telephone conversation
Keyword Location: Paragraph 1
Explanation: As per paragraph 1 of course, this does not apply to situations where eye contact is non-existent, such as during a telephone discussion. Therefore the correct answer is telephone conversation as per the explanation provided for the same.

Who has recently asserted that they can spot liars easily?

Answer: Politicians
Supporting Statement: Recently a lot of politicians have been making outrageous claims about their ability to tell when a person is lying.
Keywords: politicians, outrageous claims
Keyword Location: Paragraph 3
Explanation: As per paragraph 3, it is stated that Recently, several politicians have begun making absurd claims about their capacity to detect lies. So, the correct answer is Politicians as per the explanation provided.

What is the similarity in most psychological lying research

Answer: Videotape
Supporting Statement:The first study was conducted in 1987 and looked at whether police officers could be trained to detect deceptive eye witness statements.Airline customs inspectors, whose very job is to try and
determine suspiciousness and lying, and lay people were used in another experiment.
Keywords: first study, Airline customers
Keyword Location: Paragraph 5 and 6
Explanation: As per paragraph 5 and 6,in another experiment, laypeople and airline customs inspectors whose entire job it is to try to identify whether or not someone is dishonest and suspicious were utilized. They watched videotaped testimony of witnesses. They were merely instructed to evaluate the veracity of simulated inspection interviews that were seen on videotape. The solution is therefore videotape.

Read More IELTS Reading Related Samples