Fear of exposure

The fear of revealing in a weak form is not dangerous; on the contrary, not allowing it to relax, it may even help the liar avoid mistakes. Behavioral signs of deception, noticeable to an experienced observer, begin to appear already with an average level of fear. But a strong fear of exposure only shows that a person is very afraid of something. If the liar has the opportunity to make sure that the fear of exposure will be very great, he may decide that he is not worth the risk, and perhaps he will not lie. If he has already lied, a correct assessment of his emotional state will help him reduce or even hide his fear. However, information about the possible fear of exposure of a liar can be a good help for the verifier. He will be much more vigilant about precisely the signs of fear, if he knows that the suspect is very afraid of being caught.
The extent to which the fear of exposure can affect the feelings of a liar depends on many factors. And the first of these, which should definitely be taken into account, is the liar’s idea of ​​the ability of a deceived person to recognize a lie. If the one with whom he is dealing is known as an adversary weak, soft and trusting, the fear of exposure is usually not great. On the other hand, if you have to deal with a person with a reputation as an experienced verifier, the fear of exposure can be very strong. Parents often convince their children that they will easily discover any of their deceptions: “I just have to look into your eyes and I will immediately understand whether you are lying or not.” A child who has told a lie may be so scared that he will be caught immediately; either it will give out fear, or he himself will admit to lying, having decided that he still has no chance of success.
In the play of Terence Rattigan ^[34] “The Boy Winslow” and in the film of 1950, filmed on it, the father uses this method very successfully. His son Ronnie was expelled from the naval school on charges of stealing money:
“Arthur (father). This letter says you stole the postal order. (Ronnie is going to say something, but Arthur stops him.) Wait a word until you hear what I tell you. Answer me only after you hear me out. I will not be angry with you, Ronnie, if you tell me the truth. But if you lie to me, I still know it, because a lie between me and you is impossible. I find out the truth, Ronnie. Think about it before you decide to answer. (He fell silent.) Did you steal this translation?
Ronnie (undecided). No, father, I did not do it.
(Arthur takes a step towards him.)
Arthur (gazing into his eyes). Did you steal this translation?
Ronnie. No, father, I did not steal. (Arthur continues to look into his eyes for another second, then he sighs with relief.) ” ^[35] .
Arthur believed Ronnie, and further in the play tells about the tremendous efforts of the father and the whole family, who did everything to defend Ronnie.
Parents can not always use the strategy of Arthur in order to achieve the truth. A child who has previously successfully deceived his father many times has no reason to think that all of a sudden this may not be possible. Moreover, not all parents can really forgive the misbehavior of their child even in the case of sincere confession, so the child, based on his previous experience with parents, may simply not believe them if they suddenly offer him forgiveness in exchange for recognition. The child must trust the father, and undoubtedly the father must be trustworthy. The father, who previously did not believe his son, constantly suspected him of anything, can awaken fear in an innocent child. Here we are confronted with one of the main problems arising from attempts to convict a lie — the impossibility of distinguishing the fear of an undeserved accusation from a fear of exposing. The manifestations of fear in both cases look the same.
This problem is not only characteristic of relations between parents and children. It is very difficult to understand exactly what we are dealing with - the fear of an undeserved accusation or the fear of exposure, in any situation. Moreover, these difficulties only increase if a person is suspicious and tries to look at suspiciously at all; for him to distinguish each time the fear of an undeserved accusation from a fear of exposing will be harder and harder. True, as a result of the long-term practice of successful deceptions, the fear of exposure is reduced. A husband who changes his tenth mistress is not particularly worried about being caught. He has a lot of experience behind him, allowing him to foresee perfectly what and how to hide. But most importantly, he is sure that in which case he can always get out; overconfidence also reduces the fear of exposure. And then a liar can make mistakes simply because of carelessness, that is, some fear of exposing is even useful for a liar.
The principle of the lie detector is based on the same stereotype, and, therefore, the detector is just as vulnerable as a person, because it detects not the deception itself, but only emotional arousal. His wires are attached to the suspect only to indicate physiological changes. Increased pressure or increased sweating by themselves are not signs of cheating. The fact that the hands become wet and the heart begins to beat more strongly indicates only the appearance of a certain emotion - and that’s all. However, prior to detector testing, many operators try to convince the suspect, using the so-called “stimulation”, that the device never fails to expose the liars.
To do this, most often the suspect is offered to make sure that the machine is able to determine the card that he chose from the deck. After the subject chooses a card and returns it to the deck, the operator starts to show him the card behind the card and asks each time to say “no”, even if he sees the card he has chosen. Some of the operators are never wrong, but only because they don’t trust the detector’s readings and use marked cards. To justify their deception, they cite the following two considerations. If the suspect is innocent, it is necessary to convince him that the car is not mistaken, otherwise the fear of an undeserved accusation could destroy it during the test. If he is guilty, it is necessary to make him afraid of exposing, otherwise the machine will be simply useless. However, most operators do not engage in this kind of deceit and completely rely on the detector readings; they believe that the detector readings will really help them find out which card was taken by the suspect ^[36] .
Yes, the suspect must believe in the ability of the verifier to expose the lie (as it was in “Boy Winslow”). And then the signs of fear will be bad evidence only if the questions are not sufficiently thought out, that is, someone who is telling the truth can also cause fear. However, lie detector checks fail, not only because some of the subjects fear unfair accusations or worry for some other reason during testing, but also because some criminals simply do not believe in the magic power of the machine. They know they can deceive her; and knowing it, and doing it without difficulty ^[37] .
Another parallel with the “Boy Winslow” is the attempt of the lie detector operator to achieve recognition at all costs. As the father declared his special ability to expose lies, trying to force his son to confess if he is guilty, some operators also try to extort a confession, convincing their suspects that the car cannot be lost. When a suspect does not confess, some lie detector operators put pressure on him, stating that, judging by the testimony of the machine, he is not telling the truth. There is always hope that, in connection with the growing danger of exposure, the guilty party is finally recognized. The innocent will carry the false accusations, or perhaps begin to prove his innocence. Unfortunately, in such a situation, some innocent people can make a false confession only in order to get rid of psychological pressure.
The lie detector operator usually does not have the right of a parent to forgive a crime if it is recognized. The investigator, interrogating the suspect, has the opportunity to at least hint that voluntary confession can mitigate the punishment. Although the investigator is usually not able to offer complete forgiveness, in the hope of squeezing the confession, he may offer psychological forgiveness, that is, not shame or threaten with just retribution. The investigator can sympathetically explain that he understands the criminal perfectly well and that, perhaps, he himself would have done the same in his place. Or offer the suspect a salutary explanation of the motives for the crime. As an example, one can cite an excerpt from a tape recording made during the interrogation of a person suspected of the murder and subsequently found innocent. The investigator tells the suspect:
“Yes, it often happens; then the environment, the disease, something else pushes you to do something like that ... Sometimes you don’t really understand what is happening. Do something under the influence of passion or anger, or because of some kind of kink. And then he himself is disgusted even to remember it; and I would like to correct it, but you don’t know how ” ^[38] .
So far, we have been discussing the influence of the reputation of the verifier on the occurrence of a fear of exposure to a liar and the fear of an undeserved accusation of the truth telling. Another factor affecting the fear of exposure is the identity of the liar himself. For some people, lying is very hard, while others lie downright with frightening ease. And much more is known about people who lie easily than about those who are not capable of it. However, I managed to get some information about such people in the course of research on the subject of concealment of negative emotions.
In 1970, I began a series of experiments in the hope of confirming the signs of deception, which I discovered when I thoroughly analyzed the film with the recording of the conversation between the patient of the psychiatric clinic Mary and her doctor (see "Introduction"). Let me remind you, Mary hid her despair from the doctor, wanting to get permission to go home for the weekend and there, freed from supervision, to make a new suicide attempt. I checked similar cases of lies to other people, trying to make sure that the same signs of deception that were found in Mary manifest themselves in their behavior. Hope to find a sufficient number of clinical examples was not enough. Although it is often possible to suspect that the patient lies, it is quite rarely possible to establish this, unless he himself admits this (as was the case with Mary). Therefore, the only thing I had to do was to create an experimental situation on the basis of the case of Mary, in which I would have the opportunity to see the errors that arise in moments of lies.
In order to find themselves in a situation in which Mary was, the participants in the experiment had to experience very strong negative emotions and to be very interested in hiding them. I showed the subjects films with disgusting medical scenes, urging them to hide any signs of their experiences while watching. However, my first experiment failed - no one even tried to achieve success. I could not even imagine at first how difficult it is to make people lie in the laboratory. People are embarrassed, knowing that scientists look at their bad behavior. And the lack of special interest leads to the fact that a lie in experimental conditions is less convincing than in real life. Then, as a test subject, I chose students of the medical college, because for them success was significant and the degree of risk was great precisely in this kind of lie. Future nurses should be able to hide any negative emotions that arise when they see surgical or other unpleasant scenes. And they were offered the opportunity to practice the skills necessary for their subsequent work. Another reason for the choice of nurses as subjects was the desire to avoid the ethical problem that arises when demonstrating scenes with an abundance of blood to unprepared people. Thus, medical college students turned out to be ideally suited for working with such materials. The instructions that I gave them were as follows: “Imagine that you are working in the emergency room and a mother with a seriously crippled child rushes to you. You have no right to show your feelings, even if you know that a child is in terrible pain and has little chance of survival. You must control your own feelings and calm the mother before the doctor arrives. Or imagine what you will do when you have to wash the vessel of a patient who is unable to control the actions of his bowel. He is already embarrassed and ashamed of being in the position of an infant. You may be disgusted, but you must hide this feeling. And the experiment offers you a chance to test your ability to control the expression of your feelings, as well as to practice it. First, you watch a nice movie featuring colorful scenes from the life of the ocean. While watching, you should sincerely describe your feelings to the interlocutor who is not able to see what kind of film you are watching. Then you will see some of the worst scenes you could have imagined over the years in a medical facility. But when viewing these scenes, you have to hide your real experiences, so that the other person will think that you are watching another nice movie; You can, for example, say that you are shown pretty flowers from Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Please make every effort. ”
We selected the heaviest films that we could find. At the preliminary stage, we found that many people were extremely upset by the film about patients with severe burns, especially after they learned that this terrible pain could not be relieved by any medication. Others were upset by the amputation scene, partly because of the abundance of blood, and partly because of the thought of the person’s feelings after he wakes up and realizes that he has no limbs. We edited both films in such a way as if the burn victim was being amputated. Using these horrible films, we discovered how well people can hide very, very strong negative emotions, especially when they want or need to do so.
Since the competition in the medical college of our university is very high, these young students have already overcome a difficult testing system, had excellent marks and excellent characteristics. However, despite this, they all differed noticeably from each other in their ability to hide their feelings. Some did something just great, while others could not hide anything. After talking with these girls after the experiment, I found out that the inability to lie about watching disgusting films is in no way connected with the experiment itself. Some students and did not know how to hide their feelings. There are such people, and they are especially vulnerable to fear of exposure. It seems to them that any person, just by looking at them, can immediately tell if they are lying or not. What in the end really happens. Then I checked all the students, offering them a lot of various tests, and to my surprise, I found out that they couldn’t lie in any way (based on these tests) from their other friends from the experimental group. In all other respects, except for this small oddity, they looked exactly the same as the others. And their relatives and friends, knowing perfectly well this weakness, condescendingly treated their excessive veracity.
I also wanted to know more about the opposite type of people - about those who lie easily and always successfully. Inborn liars know about their abilities, as well as those who are well acquainted with them. They lie from childhood, puffing up their parents, teachers and friends whenever they want. They are not afraid of exposing at all. Quite the contrary - they are confident in their ability to deceive. Such arrogance and lack of fear of exposure are signs of a psychopathic personality. However, this is just one characteristic that congenital liars share with psychopaths. In contrast to the latter, congenital liars lack short-sightedness; they are able to learn from their own experience. They do not have other psychopathic characteristics, such as:
“Superficial charm (Super ficial charm) ... no remorse or shame; antisocial behavior without obvious remorse; pathological egocentrism and inability to love " ^[39] . (Later, when I will describe remorse of conscience, I will explain in more detail how repentance and shame give out deception.)
In my experiment, congenital liars, by evaluating various tests, were no different from their girlfriends. In the tests there was no trace of the presence of features of a psychopathic personality. And there was nothing antisocial about their character. Also, unlike psychopaths, they did not use their ability to lie to the detriment of others ^[40] .
Congenital liars, who know how to deceit extremely cleverly, consciously apply their talent, working as actors, salespeople, lawyers, parliamentarians, spies and diplomats.
Special interest in the characteristics of people who can lie most successfully was shown by the cadets of military schools: “Such a person must have a flexible combinator’s mind, a mind that works by decomposing ideas, concepts or" words "into components and then combining them as it pleases. (The Erudite game is an excellent example of this type of thinking.) ... The most famous deceivers ... were individualists, striving to achieve success by any means; such people are generally not suitable for teamwork ... and prefer to work alone. They are often convinced of the superiority of their own opinions. Such people sometimes, due to their eccentricity and isolation, are mistaken for Bohemians. However, their art is completely different. This seems to be the only common denominator for such great practitioners of deception as Churchill, Hitler,Dayan and T. E. Lawrence "^[41] .
Such "great practices" should have two completely different abilities: the ability to plan a strategy of deception and the ability to mislead your opponent in face-to-face meetings. Hitler, apparently, possessed both of these gifts equally, although usually one of them was better developed. Unfortunately, such successful liars have been studied too little; There are no works at all on the interdependence of the deceiver’s personality and his field of activity. I suspect that the answer to this question must be negative, that is, those who successfully lie in the military field will be able to do it, if necessary, in big business as well.
There is a temptation to stick to any political opponent, known for his ability to lie, a label of antisocial psychopathic personality. But, although I still have no arguments against it, I am suspicious of this practice. As Nixon can be a hero or a scoundrel, depending on his successes and failures, so can other leaders seem like psychopaths or astute politicians, depending on how their activities are evaluated in the future. Moreover, it seems to me that it is very rare for real psychopaths to break through to the positions of national leadership through bureaucratic structures.
I pointed out two determinants of the fear of exposure: on the one hand, the identity of the liar, and on the other, the reputation and character of the verifier. But at least the rate is important here. There is one simple rule: the higher the rate, the greater the fear of exposure. However, applying this simple rule, one can easily get confused, since it is not always easy to understand what is at stake.
Sometimes it is easy. For example, female nurses had a strong interest in success, especially at the beginning of their studies, and, accordingly, the rate was high. Consequently, future nurses should also have a strong fear of exposure, which could somehow manifest itself and give them away. And if it had nothing to do with their career, the fear of exposure would be weaker. For example, if they watched the plot about shoplifting, most of them would probably be less likely to try to hide their feelings. Conversely, the rate could increase even more if we could convince them that those who failed in the experiment would be expelled from college ^[42]. The seller, misleading the buyer, is primarily interested in the sale itself; it is even more enthralling than a percentage of revenue. But the greater the reward, the higher the rate, and therefore, the greater the fear of exposing should be. However, sometimes for the cheater more important is not even the reward itself. The seller can simply fall under the influence of colleagues and, fooled by a stubborn buyer (even if the commissions earned at the same time are negligible), experience a great pleasure from their admiration for his dexterity. Thus, the stakes can be very high, even if you earn one cent, especially if the cheater wants to teach the opponent a lesson, which, for example, stole his girlfriend. For some people, winning is everything.It does not matter its size - be it a few cents or hundreds of dollars - for them the rate is high in any competition. And sometimes things may be completely unexpected on the map. For example, some womanizer just from the fact of deceiving his wife alone can get much more pleasure than the caresses of a mistress.
Fear of exposure increases when the rate includes not only reward, but also the ability to escape punishment. When a person first decides to cheat, this or that reward is usually a bet. The liar thinks most about what he may be able to acquire. The embezzler who appropriated the money for the first time will think only of "wine, women and songs." But here passes some time, and the source of "income" dries out; the shortage was discovered, and the unfortunate crook under suspicion. Now he is forced to cheat, not to be behind bars. However, the need to avoid punishment may arise from the very beginning, especially if the victim of fraud shows suspicion or the deceiver himself is not very sure of himself.
Deception, in turn, involves two types of punishment: the actual for a lie, if it is found, and for offense, forcing to deception. And if a liar is threatened by both types of punishment, the fear of exposure will be stronger. Sometimes the punishment for lying is much stricter than the misdemeanor itself. The boy's father Winslow made it clear to his son that he would punish him much more for lying. And if the verifier can convince the suspect that the punishment for a lie will be much stricter than the punishment for the crime itself, this can prevent deception.
Parents should be aware that the severity of their punishment is one of the most important factors determining whether their children will be recognized or not. A perfect example of this is in the life and unforgettable deeds of George Washington in Mason Locke Wamms. In one episode, the father says to young George:
“Many parents themselves force their children to this heinous business [of a lie] by cruel beatings for any smallest offense; which means that the next time a small, horrified creature will certainly fall into the abyss of lies! Just to avoid the stick. As for you, George, you know, I have always said and will repeat now that whenever you accidentally do something wrong, that, in general, happens quite often, especially while you are just a poor little boy without experience and knowledge, no need to invent anything to hide your wrongdoing; you just have to be a little man, feel free to come to me and confess everything - and then, instead of punishing you, George, I will only respect and love you more for it, my dear. ” And the episode described below with a cherry tree shows that George believed his father.
The fact that, by deceiving, one can lose much more than in the case of sincere confession, it is fair not only in relations between parents and children. For example, a husband may warn his wife that, although it will hurt him, he will forgive her treason, if she does not lie. For him, the loss of trust is much worse than the loss of illusions about her loyalty. Although in reality this is not always the case, and his wife may think about it differently. Recognition of treason can be interpreted as cruelty; the guilty spouse may consider that it is much more delicate not to bring to light his imprudent acts. Husbands and wives in this often disagree with each other, because feelings have an incredible influence on the course of their life together. Relationships after treason may differ dramatically from those that existed before the incident has yet emerged.However, even if the delinquent knows perfectly well that a lie will be punished much more than if confessed, a lie can remain very seductive, because recognition brings immediate and definite losses, while a lie offers the possibility to avoid any losses whatsoever. And the prospect of avoiding immediate punishment may be so attractive that the liar will underestimate the possible consequences. The realization that the admission of guilt would be the best policy usually comes too late, when deception lasts so long and is overgrown with such details that recognition can hardly contribute to a noticeable reduction in punishment.since recognition brings immediate and definite losses, while a lie offers the possibility of avoiding any losses at all. And the prospect of avoiding immediate punishment may be so attractive that the liar will underestimate the possible consequences. The realization that the admission of guilt would be the best policy usually comes too late, when deception lasts so long and is overgrown with such details that recognition can hardly contribute to a noticeable reduction in punishment.since recognition brings immediate and definite losses, while a lie offers the possibility of avoiding any losses at all. And the prospect of avoiding immediate punishment may be so attractive that the liar will underestimate the possible consequences. The realization that the admission of guilt would be the best policy usually comes too late, when deception lasts so long and is overgrown with such details that recognition can hardly contribute to a noticeable reduction in punishment.when deception lasts so long and is overgrown with such details that recognition can hardly contribute to a noticeable reduction in punishment.when deception lasts so long and is overgrown with such details that recognition can hardly contribute to a noticeable reduction in punishment.
But not all recognition is preferable to deception. There are acts that are in themselves so terrible that recognizing them in no way facilitates punishment. This happens, for example, when child abuse, incest, murder, treason or terrorism are hidden. If any repentant lovelover can still be excused, then there is no forgiveness for those who confess to the crimes listed above (although sincere confession caused by sincere repentance may reduce the punishment somewhat). And in the case of the disclosure of such crimes, it is unlikely that anyone would condemn the criminal for not having opened himself. And to find themselves in a situation where deception is preferable to recognition, not only deliberately disgusting and cruel people can. A Jew hiding howl nationality in a country occupied by the Nazisor a spy during a war gains nothing from his confession and loses nothing by deceiving. However, even when there is no chance to reduce the punishment, a liar can admit at least in order not to make his deception more and more new and new, or to get rid of a strong fear of exposure, or to get rid of remorse of conscience.
Another aspect of the influence of a bet on the fear of exposure is that it gains and that it loses the deceived, and not the liar. Usually all liar acquisitions occur at the expense of the victim. The employee takes what the employer loses. However, acquired and lost are not always equal. The seller’s commission fee due to the sale of a defective product may be much less than the losses incurred by the gullible buyer. In addition, the share of participation of the liar and the victim of fraud may differ not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Volokita gains only another adventure, while the cuckold loses its self-esteem. And the level of fear of exposure is very dependent on such a difference in the rates of the liar and the victim. Which, in turn, also depends on whether the difference is aware of the liar himself.
A liar is usually unable to correctly estimate the rate of his victim. He is only interested in believing him, and in order to achieve this goal he sometimes does not shun anything. In addition, it is more convenient for a liar to think that the victim needs deception as much or even more than him. After all, not every lie is harmful. Sometimes a lie of humanity.
“A pale, frail eleven-year-old boy, wounded but alive, was pulled out yesterday from the wreckage of a small plane that crashed on Sunday in the mountains of Yosemite National Park. The boy spent several days at the crash site at an altitude of 11,000 feet; he lay wrapped in a sleeping bag in the backseat of debris poured with snow amidst a raging blizzard, in freezing temperatures. “How are my mom and dad?” Was the first question of the stunned fifth-grader. “Are they all right?” The rescuers did not tell the boy that his stepfather and mother - still strapped to their seats in the shattered cabin, almost a few centimeters from him - are dead ” ^[43] .
Not many will deny that there was a human-loving lie here, the so-called lie of salvation, which does not imply any benefit for the rescuers. However, the nobility of deception does not mean that the liar will not be very afraid of exposure. If the rate is high, there may be a very strong fear of exposure, and then it does not matter who benefits more. Worried about whether the boy could withstand such a shock, the rescuers had to take care that their deception looked as real as possible.
Based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that the fear of exposure is highest in cases where:

• - the victim has a reputation for being hard to fool;
• - the victim begins to suspect something;
• - the liar has little experience in the practice of cheating;
• - the liar is predisposed to fear of exposure;
• - the stakes are very high;
• - both reward and punishment are at stake; or, if only one of them occurs, the bet is to avoid punishment;
• - the punishment for the lie itself or the act is so great that it makes no sense to admit;
• - the victim is completely unprofitable lie.