© Teerthanker Mahaveer University

Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

All rights reserved.

i
 CERTIFICATE

Certified that the thesis titled “A Study on Identification of Determinants and Variants
of Lies in Communication for Enhancing Quality of Decisions” submitted to
Teerthanker Mahaveer Institute of Management and Technology (TMIMT),
Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad in fulfilment of the requirements for
the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management is a record of
original work done by Prabal Frank Nandwani under our supervision and guidance.

This thesis has not formed the basis for the award of any Degree/ Diploma/
Associateship/ Fellowship or similar other title to any candidate of any University.

Research Supervisors

Prof. Raj Kumar Mittal Prof. Krishna Kumar Pande

Vice-Chancellor Dean (Academics)
Chaudhary Bansi Lal University Teerthanker Mahaveer University
Harayana Uttar Pradesh

Chairperson, College Research Committee

Teerthanker Mahaveer Institute of Management and Technology
Teerthanker Mahaveer University

ii
 DECLARATION

I do hereby declare that the thesis titled “A Study on Identification of Determinants

and Variants of Lies in Communication for Enhancing Quality of Decisions”
submitted to Teerthanker Mahaveer University in fulfilment of the requirement for the
award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management is a record of original
work done by me under the supervision and guidance of Prof. Dr. Raj Kumar Mittal,
Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Bansi Lal University, Bhiwani, Haryana and Prof. Dr.
Krishna Kumar Pande, Dean (Academics), Teerthanker Mahaveer University.

This thesis has not formed the basis for the award of any Degree/ Diploma/
Associateship/ Fellowship or similar other title to any candidate of any University.

Signature:

Name: Prabal Frank Nandwani

Registration No.: TMG14PhD/103
Place: New Delhi
Date: 18 June, 2020

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Individual accomplishments have ever been in lesser or greater measure the result of
the contributions from other people though they may not be directly visible.

My wife, Aarti, was diagnosed with a difficult type of cancer while she was doing her
doctoral research. Within months of her being diagnosed with this ghastly disease, she
left for the heavenly journey. She had always wanted to do research and earn a
doctorate degree. This research study has been initiated in her memoriam.

While I used to lecture on my core subjects, I found a well-wisher in Dr Aradhana

Bahari, a lecturer in Department of Psychology with DAV College of Women in
Ferozepur. She was the first one who put the seed thought to do research in
psychology more than a decade ago. I am grateful to her for her motivational words
every time I meet her.

There is a lot of difference between the cup and the lip. There is so much that goes
between thinking of doing a research and actually completing it. It is only because of
immense support and precise guidance time and again by my mentors Prof. Dr. Raj
Kumar Mittal and Prof. Dr. Krishna Kumar Pande that I have been able to complete
this research. I feel a sense of indebtedness to him for all he has done for me.

The journey from starting to completing the research looks shorter from a distance.
There are times when a researcher is baffled by the sheer vastness of the literature, he
has to go through in order to arrive at his own perceptions. In between, there are times
when laziness takes over, and at all such times I found my family – my father, mother
and my daughter – as a source of strength. They helped me to rejuvenate and filled-in
the necessary energy to keep the momentum going. I love them and thank them for
their unyielding support.

The study has been done on students studying in various colleges. I am very grateful
to the Professors mentioned below for giving me access to their college and students
for the purpose of this study:

iv
 1. Prof. Dr. Krishna Kumar Pande, Dean (Academics), Teerthanker Mahaveer
University, Moradabad
2. Prof. Dr. Roop Khar, B S Angapuria Institute of Management, Faridabad
3. Prof. Dr. Dhusia, Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi
4. Dr Brajesh Kumar, K R Mangalam University, Gurgaon

One-on-one Interviews form the backbone of this study. During the interviews, the
camera was professionally handled by my student Samrat Tyagi, and support provided
by another student Simranjeet Singh. I thank them both.

Amit Kumar, one of my students, has helped me during the process of evaluation of
EPQ-R scores and Dinesh Rawat, a fellow researcher with Dr R K Mittal, has assisted
me in the most time-consuming task of analysing the videos. I thank them both as
well.

The study uses the equipment and/or software developed by companies like Sony and
Microsoft. It made the research technologically possible. I thank their founders,
management and team members.

Most importantly, as wasted talent is so easy to find, I feel lucky to have the blessings
of Almighty to have been able to complete this research. I thank Almighty for
whatever I am, for whatever I can be and for whatever I will be.

Prabal Frank Nandwani

June 18, 2020

v
 ABSTRACT

Lies are everywhere. Geary (2000) states that some internet sources claim that
humans tell two hundred lies a day. Feldman et al. (2002) also found during his
research that during a ten-minute conversation would on an average contain two to
three lies. Our society pays an enormous price for businesses and leaders that trade in
lies. According to a report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2008),
deception costs business $994 billion per year.

In spite of the vast pervasiveness and the immense cost of lies to the society, the
extent of ignorance about how to detect lies is alarming. Researches point out that
more than three-quarters of the lies go undetected. Vrij (2000), found out that 75
percent of lies went undetected while DePaulo et al. (1996), put this figure at 82
percent.

The broader aim of the present study is to be empower a layman with skills to detect
when he or she is being lied to in their daily communications without the assistance of
any instrumentation. The outcome of the present study will enable them to take better
decisions and lead a happier life.

The present study is an experimental research based on field survey. For fulfilment of
the above research problem the target group of college-going students pursuing
undergraduate and postgraduate courses has been chosen based on the maturation of
their communication style and the number of active working years ahead of them.

The target group has been extracted on the basis of stratified sampling from four
different academic institutes. The following are the academic institutions from which
the target group was selected for sampling: Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi; K R
Mangalam University, Gurgaon; B S Angapuria Institute of Management, Faridabad;
and Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad.

Stratified random sampling method has been adopted for selection of the institute.
The first institute Jamia Milia Islamia is in NCT; two institutes K R Mangalam
University and B S Angapuria Institute of Management are selected from the urban
agglomeration of the NCR; and one institute is selected from the satellite town of

vi
NCR. These academic institutes were selected to maintain the heterogeneity and
geographical diversity of the sample population.

A total of 215 respondents have been taken from the above-mentioned academic
institutions. Out of these respondents, 64 were females and 151 were males. While
looking from perspective of locale, 156 respondents belong to Metropolitan Areas
while 59 respondents belong to Non-Metropolitan Areas.

Data has been collected in three stages. In the first stage, consent of the participants
and their basic information has been collected. Thereafter, in the second stage, the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) has been administered on all the
respondents to infer their personality. Finally, in the third stage, one-on-one
interviews have been conducted and were video recorded for further analysis.

As per the final count, a total of 2150 statements have been gathered from 215
respondents. This way the true statements total to 1720 and the lie statements total to
430.

Then the data has been processed in four stages. First, it has been entered in a
spreadsheet on the computer along with key info including gender and locale of the
respondents. A unique serial number has been allotted to each respondent and the
number of the video file which contains his interview has been mentioned in the next
column to help identify the interview videos easily.

Then, the EPQ (Revised) Questionnaire has been evaluated according to the ‘Scoring
Key’ provided along with the Questionnaire, to find out the personality details of the
respondents. The scoring key mentions that females with a score up to 10 are not
extroverted, those with a score of 11-15 are less extroverted, and those with a score of
16 and above are quite extroverted. Based on these indicators, the present study marks
the females with a score up to 12 as introverts and with scores of 13 and above as
extroverts.

Similarly, for males the scoring key suggests that males with a score up to 11 are not
extroverted, those with a score of 9 to 13 are less extroverted, and those with a score
of 14 and above are very extroverted. Taking this as a base, the present study marks
the males with a score up to 12 as introverted and those with scores above 12 as

vii
extroverted. Out of the 215 respondents, 155 respondents have been scored to have
introverted personality while 60 respondents have extroverted personality.

In the third stage of data analysis, the one-on-one interviews of all the 215
respondents have been subjected to minute observation and analysis. For
comprehensive and detailed analysis of the videos, a ‘Video Analysis Sheet’ has been
created and subsequently the results have been filled-in for further statistical analysis.
For analysing the interviews the following five parameters namely Voice Fumble
(VF), Voice Gap (VG), Upward Eye Movement (EM), Palm Concealment (PC) and
Face Touch (FT) have been extracted. The softwares used for analysing the videos are
Windows Media Player and Adobe Premiere. The advanced features of the Adobe
Premiere software have helped to complete the analysis faster.

Finally, in stage four the data has been subjected to statistical analysis and the
Hypothesis have been tested. The communication variables (Voice Fumble, Voice
Gap, Upward Eye Movement, Palm Concealment and Face Touch) have been
analysed by contrasting between true statements and lie statements for the first
objective of the study. However, for subsequent objectives only lie statements were
analysed to draw its relationship with the three variants of lies (Personality, Gender
and Locale).

The present study uses Chi-Square and ANOVA to analyse the communication
variables and variants of lies. To test the null hypothesis, a significance level of 95
percent has been considered since this is a behavioural study and the data is
heterogenous in nature. For testing of first hypothesis, communication variables are
dependent variables while True and Lie Statements are independent variables. For the
rest of the three hypothesis, communication variables are considered as dependent
variables while the variants of lies are taken as independent variables. The software
used for Chi-Square and ANOVA analysis was SPSS (version 18).

The following results were obtained with the help of statistical analysis and
hypothesis testing:

First, the variations in the above-mentioned five communication parameters have

been observed with respect to true statements and lie statements. It is found that four
out of five variables namely Voice Gap, Upward Eye Movement, Palm Concealment

viii
and Face Touch vary significantly when people lie. Among these, the variable of
Palm Concealment varies most significantly followed by the Upward Eye Movement.
Voice Gap and Face Touch also vary when people lie but to a lesser magnitude.

The present study has found that there is an immense significance of the intention
behind communication on the communication variables. This can be easily inferred
from the facts that about one in every two statements in which Palm Concealment
occurs happens to be a lie; one in every three statements in which Face Touch occurs
happens to be a lie; one in every four statements in which Voice Gap occurs happens
to be a lie; and one in every four statements in which Upward Eye Movement occurs
happens to be a lie. If all these four variables are applied simultaneously, then the user
of this study shall be able to identify that he or she is being lied to at least three out of
four times. This means that the success rate of identifying a lie by using these
parameters is considerably high.

Second, the impact of personality on communication variables while lying has been
evaluated. It is found that Personality (P) plays a major impact on the variable of
Voice Fumble while lying. Extroverts (E) while lying commit Voice Fumbles (VF)
only 3.33 percent times, whereas Introverts (I) in similar circumstances commit Voice
Fumbles (VF) 7.09 percent times. Introverts commit double the amount of Voice
Fumbles as compared to Extroverts while lying.

Further, Personality (P) plays a major impact on the variable of Voice Gap (VG)
while lying. Extroverts (E) while lying commit Voice Gap (VG) only 39.16 percent
times, whereas Introverts (I) in similar circumstances commit Voice Gap (VG) 28.71
percent times. Extroverts commit considerably more Voice Gaps as compared to
Introverts while lying.

Talking about Upward Eye Movement, Personality (P) does not have any major
impact on this variable while lying. Extroverts (E) while lying commit Upward Eye
Movement (EM) only 45 percent times, whereas Introverts (I) in similar
circumstances commit Upward Eye Movement (EM) 42.09 percent times. Introverts
commit a little less number of Upward Eye Movement (EM) as compared to
Extroverts while lying.

ix
Moving to Voice Fumble, Personality (P) does not play a major impact on this
variable of lie identification. Extroverts (E) while lying commit Palm Concealment
(PC) 57.50 percent times, whereas Introverts (I) in similar circumstances commit
Palm Concealment (PC) 59.68 percent times.

Introverts and Extroverts commit similar proportions of Palm Concealment (PC) in

their interaction while lying.

Finally, Personality (P) also does not have a major impact on the variable of Face
Touch (FT) while lying. Extroverts (E) while lying commit Face Touch (FT) only
3.33 percent times, whereas Introverts (I) in similar circumstances commit Face
Touch (FT) 3.55 percent times. Introverts commit almost the same proportion of Face
Touch (FT) as compared to Extroverts while lying.

Summarily, it can be said that personality does affect the communication variables of
Voice Fumble and Voice Gap however, the effect on Voice Fumble is not statistically
significant.

Third, the impact of gender on communication variables while lying has been studied.
It is found that Gender (G) does impact the variable of Voice Fumble while lying.
While Males (M) commit Voice Fumbles (VF) 6.62 percent times, Females (F)
commit Voice Fumbles (VF) 4.69 percent times. Males commit more Voice Fumbles
while lying than have been committed by Females.

Further, Gender (G) also impacts the variable of Voice Gap while lying. While Males
(M) commit Voice Gap (VG) 33.44 percent times, Females (F) commit Voice Gap
(VG) 27.34 percent times. Males commit more Voice Gaps while lying than have
been committed by Females.

Coming to the variable of Upward Eye Movement (EM), it is observed that Gender
(G) does not impact this variable much while lying. While Males (M) commit Upward
Eye Movement (EM) 42.72 percent times, Females (F) commit Upward Eye
Movement (EM) 45.31 percent times. Females commit a little more Upward Eye
Movement (EM) while lying than have been committed by Males.

Moving ahead to the variable of Palm Concealment (PC), the study revealed that
Gender (G) does impact this variable while lying. While Males (M) commit Palm

x
Concealment (PC) 62.25 percent times, Females (F) commit Palm Concealment (PC)
51.56 percent times. Males commit more Palm Concealment (PC) while lying than
have been committed by Females.

Also, Gender (G) does impact the variable of Face Touch while lying. While Males
(M) commit Face Touch (FT) 3.97 percent times, Females (F) commit Face Touch
(FT) 2.34 percent times. Males commit more Face Touch (FT) while lying than have
been committed by Females.

In brief, it can be said that Gender does affect the communication variables of Voice
Fumble, Voice Gap, Palm Concealment and Face Touch considerably and it was
observed that Males commit more Voice Fumbles, Voice Gaps, Palm Concealments
and Face Touch while lying than Females.

Lastly, the impact of Locale on communication variables while lying has been
observed. It is found that while lying, Locale (L) has limited role as far as the variable
of Voice Fumble is concerned. While respondents from Metropolitan Areas (T)
commit Voice Fumbles (VF) 6.09 percent times, respondents from Non-Metropolitan
Areas (N) commit Voice Fumbles (VF) 5.93 percent times.

Also, Locale (L) has limited effect on the variable of Voice Gap (VG) while lying.
While respondents from Metropolitan Areas (T) commit Voice Gap (VG) 32.69
percent times, respondents from Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) commit Voice Gap
(VG) 28.81 percent times.

As far as the variable of Upward Eye Movement (EM) is concerned, Locale (L) has a
major effect on this variable. While respondents from Metropolitan Areas (T) commit
Upward Eye Movement (EM) 40.71 percent times, respondents from Non-
Metropolitan Areas (N) commit Upward Eye Movement (EM) 50.85 percent times.
So Non-Metropolitan Area dwellers commit Upward Eye Movement (EM) greater
number of times than the dwellers of Metropolitan Areas.

Moving to Palm Concealment (PC), Locale (L) has a major effect on this variable.
While respondents from Metropolitan Areas (T) commit Palm Concealment (PC)
63.14 percent times, respondents from Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) commit Palm
Concealment (PC) 48.31 percent times.

xi
Also, while lying, Locale (L) does have an influence on the variable of Face Touch
(FT). While respondents from Metropolitan Areas (T) commit Face Touch (FT) 3.21
percent times, respondents from Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) commit Face Touch
(FT) 4.24 percent times.

In short, it can be said that Locale has considerable effect on communication variables
of Voice Gap, Eye Movement and Palm Concealment. However, Eye Movement is
statistically significant at a variation of 10 percent. Further, it is found that
respondents from Metropolitan Areas (T) commit more Voice Gaps and Palm
Concealments than respondents from Non-Metropolitan Areas (N). However, Non-
Metropolitan Area dwellers commit Upward Eye Movement greater number of times
than the dwellers of Metropolitan Areas.

On analysing the 430 Lie Statements (LS) it is found that at least one of the four
communication variables namely Voice Gap (VG), Upward Eye Movement (EM),
Palm Concealment (PC) and Face Touch (FT) are present in 370 Lie Statements (LS).
This means that if one correctly applies the above mentioned four communication
variables, one can catch if he or she is being lied to about 86 percent of the times. It
does sound astounding for a layman especially being able to detect lies without the
use of any sophisticated tools.

In summary we can say that when a person lies, it can be detected by other people 86
percent times without the use of any equipment and without any sophisticated training
by merely observing his or her voice, eyes, palms or face.

The findings of the present study are immensely useful for team leaders involved in
decision making across all sectors of the economy. Heads of financial institutions can
prevent themselves from falling prey to intentional defaulters and thereby reduce
chances of loans getting converted to non-performing assets. All interrogating officers
and the officers engaged in maintaining law and order situations and such like
activities shall find this study very handy for making efficacious decisions. Even in
individuals’ personal life and one’s intra-personal relations the findings of the study
can go a long way in preventing heartache and divorces. Summarily, the study has a
vast scope of serving the society at large across the globe.

xii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page No.

Certificate from Supervisor ii

Declaration from Researcher iii
Acknowledgments iv
Abstract vi
List of Figures xix
List of Tables xxiv
List of Abbreviations xxix
Chapter 1: Introduction 1 to 21
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Conceptual Framework 1
1.2.1 Communication 1
1.2.2 Conceptual Understanding of Deception 4
1.2.3 Theories/Models of Deception 8
1.2.3.1 Interpersonal Deception Theory 8
1.2.3.2 Regulatory Focus Theory 9
1.2.3.3 Intention Hierarchy Model 10
1.2.3.4 The Activation Decision Construction Model 12
1.2.3.5 The Working Model of Deception 13
1.2.4 Lies in Communication 13
1.2.5 Detection of Lies 15
1.3 Research Problem 20
1.4 Relevance of Study 20
1.5 Chapter Scheme 21
Chapter 2: Review of Literature 22 to 57
2.1 Introduction 22
2.2 Lies in Communication 22
2.3 Detection of Lies 30
2.4 Non-Verbal Communication and Lies 40
2.4.1 Body Language and Lies 43
2.4.2 Eye Movement and Lies 44
2.4.3 Handwriting and Lies 45
2.4.4 Voice and Lies 46
2.5 Variation in Lies 48
2.5.1 Personality and Lies 48
2.5.2 Gender and Lies 49
2.5.3 Culture and Lies 54
2.6 Research Gap 56
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 58 to 81
3.1 Introduction 58
3.2 Research Problem 58
3.3 Research Hypothesis 58
3.4 Research Objectives 59
3.5 Research Method 60

xiii
 3.5.1 Research Constructs 60
3.5.1.1 Variables Selected for Identification of Lies 60
3.5.1.1.1 Voice Fumble (VF) 61
3.5.1.1.2 Voice Gap (VG) 61
3.5.1.1.3 Upward Eye Movement (EM) 63
3.5.1.1.4 Palm Concealment (PC) 64
3.5.1.1.5 Face Touch (FT) 65
3.5.1.2 Variants of Lies 65
3.5.1.1.1 Personality (P) 65
3.5.1.1.2 Gender (G) 66
3.5.1.1.3 Locale (L) 66
3.5.2 Sampling Design 67
3.5.2.1 Sampling Method 67
3.5.2.2 Sample Size 67
3.5.3 Data Collection 71
3.5.4 Data Analysis 76
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion 82 to 175
4.1 Introduction 82
4.2 Impact of Lies on Communication 83
4.2.1 Voice Fumble (VF) in True Statements and Lie Statements 83
4.2.2 Voice Gap (VG) in True Statements and Lie Statements 85
4.2.3 Upward Eye Movement (EM) in True Statements and Lie 87
Statements
4.2.4 Palm Concealment (PC) in True Statements and Lie 90
Statements
4.2.5 Face Touch (FT) in True Statements and Lie Statements 92
4.2.6 Summary of Impact of Lies on Communication 95
4.2.7 Testing the Significance of Impact of Lies on 96
Communication
4.3 Impact of Personality on Lies 98
4.3.1 Personality (P) and Voice Fumble (VF) 98
4.3.1.1 Extroverts (E) and Voice Fumble (VF) 98
4.3.1.2 Introverts (I) and Voice Fumble (VF) 100
4.3.1.3 Comparison of Impact of Extroverts (E) and Introverts 101
(I) on Voice Fumble (VF)
4.3.2 Personality (P) and Voice Gap (VG) 102
4.3.2.1 Extroverts (E) and Voice Gap (VG) 103
4.3.2.2 Introverts (I) and Voice Gap (VG) 104
4.3.2.3 Comparison of Impact of Extroverts (E) and Introverts 105
(I) on Voice Gap (VG)
4.3.3 Personality (P) and Upward Eye Movement (EM) 106
4.3.3.1 Extroverts (E) and Upward Eye Movement (EM) 106
4.3.3.2 Introverts (I) and Upward Eye Movement (EM) 107
4.3.3.3 Comparison of Impact of Extroverts (E) and Introverts 109
(I) on Upward Eye Movement (EM)
4.3.4 Personality (P) and Palm Concealment (PC) 110
4.3.4.1 Extroverts (E) and Palm Concealment (PC) 110
4.3.4.2 Introverts (I) and Palm Concealment (PC) 112
4.3.4.3 Comparison of Impact of Extroverts (E) and Introverts 113
(I) on Palm Concealment (PC)

xiv
 4.3.5 Personality (P) and Face Touch (FT) 114
4.3.5.1 Extroverts (E) and Face Touch (FT) 114
4.3.5.2 Introverts (I) and Face Touch (FT) 115
4.3.5.3 Comparison of Impact of Extroverts (E) and Introverts 116
(I) on Face Touch (FT)
4.3.6 Summary of Impact of Personality on Communication 118
Variables while Lying
4.3.7 Testing the Significance of Personality on Communication 122
Variables while Lying
4.4 Impact of Gender on Lies 123
4.4.1 Gender (G) and Voice Fumble (VF) 123
4.4.1.1 Males (M) and Voice Fumble (VF) 124
4.4.1.2 Females (F) and Voice Fumble (VF) 125
4.4.1.3 Comparison of Impact of Males (M) and Females (F) 126
on Voice Fumble (VF)
4.4.2 Gender (G) and Voice Gap (VG) 127
4.4.2.1 Males (M) and Voice Gap (VG) 127
4.4.2.2 Females (F) and Voice Gap (VG) 128
4.4.2.3 Comparison of Impact of Males (M) and Females (F) 129
on Voice Gap (VG)
4.4.3 Gender (G) and Upward Eye Movement (EM) 131
4.4.3.1 Males (M) and Upward Eye Movement (EM) 131
4.4.3.2 Females (F) and Upward Eye Movement (EM) 132
4.4.3.3 Comparison of Impact of Males (M) and Females (F) 134
on Upward Eye Movement (EM)
4.4.4 Gender (G) and Palm Concealment (PC) 135
4.4.4.1 Males (M) and Palm Concealment (PC) 135
4.4.4.2 Females (F) and Palm Concealment (PC) 136
4.4.4.3 Comparison of Impact of Males (M) and Females (F) 138
on Palm Concealment (PC)
4.4.5 Gender (G) and Face Touch (FT) 139
4.4.5.1 Males (M) and Face Touch (FT) 139
4.4.5.2 Females (F) and Face Touch (FT) 140
4.4.5.3 Comparison of Impact of Males (M) and Females (F) 142
on Face Touch (FT)
4.4.6 Summary of Impact of Gender on Communication 143
Variables while Lying
4.4.7 Testing the Significance of Gender on Communication 146
Variables while Lying
4.5 Impact of Locale on Lies 148
4.5.1 Locale (L) and Voice Fumble (VF) 148
4.5.1.1 Metropolitan Areas (T) and Voice Fumble (VF) 148
4.5.1.2 Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) and Voice Fumble (VF) 150
4.5.1.3 Comparison of Impact of Metropolitan Areas (T) and 151
Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) on Voice Fumble (VF)
4.5.2 Locale (L) and Voice Gap (VG) 152
4.5.2.1 Metropolitan Areas (T) and Voice Gap (VG) 153
4.5.2.2 Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) and Voice Gap (VG) 154
4.5.2.3 Comparison of Impact of Metropolitan Areas (T) and 155
Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) on Voice Gap (VG)

xv
 4.5.3 Locale (L) and Upward Eye Movement (EM) 156
4.5.3.1 Metropolitan Areas (T) and Upward Eye Movement 157
(EM)
4.5.3.2 Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) and Upward Eye 158
Movement (EM)
4.5.3.3 Comparison of Impact of Metropolitan Areas (T) and 159
Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) on Upward Eye
Movement (EM)
4.5.4 Locale (L) and Palm Concealment (PC) 161
4.5.4.1 Metropolitan Areas (T) and Palm Concealment (PC) 161
4.5.4.2 Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) and Palm Concealment 162
(PC)
4.5.4.3 Comparison of Impact of Metropolitan Areas (T) and 164
Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) on Palm Concealment
(PC)
4.5.5 Locale (L) and Face Touch (FT) 165
4.5.5.1 Metropolitan Areas (T) and Face Touch (FT) 165
4.5.5.2 Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) and Face Touch (FT) 167
4.5.5.3 Comparison of Impact of Metropolitan Areas (T) and 168
Non-Metropolitan Areas (N) on Face Touch (FT)
4.5.6 Summary of Impact of Locale on Communication 169
Variables while Lying
4.5.7 Testing the Significance of Locale on Communication 172
Variables while Lying
4.6 Summary of Hypothesis Testing 174
4.7 Conclusion 174
Chapter 5: Conclusions 176 to 178
Bibliography 179
Appendices 207

xvi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number and Caption Page No.

Figure 3.1: Designed Layout of Selected Variables for Detection of 62
Lies
Figure 3.2: Schematic Representation of Eye Movements as 63
Revealed in Neuro-Linguistic Programming Researches
Figure 3.3: Institute wise Detail of Total Samples Collected 68
Figure 3.4: Institute wise detail of Female and Male Respondents 69
Figure 3.5: Institute wise detail of Respondents from Metropolitan 70
Areas and Non-Metropolitan Areas
Figure 3.6: Proportion of True Statements and Lie Statements 74
Spoken by Each Respondent
Figure 3.7: Total True Statements and Lie Statements Collected 76
from Respondents
Figure 4.1: Prevalence of Voice Fumble in True Statements and Lie 83
Statements
Figure 4.2: Chance of a Statement Being True Statement or Lie 84
Statement when Voice Fumble Occurs
Figure 4.3: Prevalence of Voice Gap in True Statements and Lie 86
Statements
Figure 4.4: Chance of a Statement Being True Statement or Lie 86
Statement when Voice Gap Occurs
Figure 4.5: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement in True 88
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.6: Chance of a Statement Being True Statement or Lie 89
Statement when Upward Eye Movement Occurs
Figure 4.7: Prevalence of Palm Concealment in True Statements 91
and Lie Statements
Figure 4.8: Chance of a Statement Being True Statement or Lie 91
Statement when Palm Concealment Occurs
Figure 4.9: Prevalence of Face Touch in True Statements and Lie 93
Statements
Figure 4.10: Chance of a Statement Being True Statement or Lie 94
Statement when Face Touch Occurs
Figure 4.11: Prevalence of Various Communication Variables in 96
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.12: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Extroverts in True 99
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.13: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Introverts in True 101
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.14: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Fumble by 102
Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.15: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Extroverts in True 103
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.16: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Introverts in True 104
Statements and Lie Statements

xvii
Figure 4.17: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Gap by 105
Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.18: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Extroverts in 107
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.19: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Introverts in 108
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.20: Comparison of Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement 109
by Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.21: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Extroverts in True 111
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.22: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Introverts in True 112
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.23: Comparison of Prevalence of Palm Concealment by 113
Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.24: Prevalence of Face Touch by Extroverts in True 115
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.25: Prevalence of Face Touch by Introverts in True 116
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.26: Comparison of Prevalence of Face Touch by 117
Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.27: Variation in Communication Variables by Personality 120
in True Statements
Figure 4.28: Variation in Communication Variables by Personality 120
in Lie Statements
Figure 4.29: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Males in True 124
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.30: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Females in True 125
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.31: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Gender 126
in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.32: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Males in True Statements 128
and Lie Statements
Figure 4.33: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Females in True 129
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.34: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Gap by Gender in 130
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.35: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Males in 132
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.36: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Females in 133
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.37: Comparison of Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement 134
by Gender in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.38: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Males in 136
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.39: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Females in True 137
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.40: Comparison of Prevalence of Palm Concealment by 138
Gender in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.41: Prevalence of Face Touch by Males in True Statements 140
and Lie Statements

xviii
Figure 4.42: Prevalence of Face Touch by Females in True 141
Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.43: Comparison of Prevalence of Face Touch by Gender in 142
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.44: Variation in Communication Variables by Gender in 145
True Statements
Figure 4.45: Variation in Communication Variables by Gender in 145
Lie Statements
Figure 4.46: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Respondents from 149
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.47: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Respondents from 151
Non-Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.48: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Locale 152
in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.49: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Respondents from 153
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.50: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Respondents from Non- 155
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.51: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Gap by Locale in 156
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.52: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement (EM) by 158
Respondents from Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie
Statements
Figure 4.53: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement (EM) by 159
Respondents from Non-Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and
Lie Statements
Figure 4.54: Comparison of Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement 160
by Locale in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.55: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Respondents from 162
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.56: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Respondents from 163
Non-Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.57: Comparison of Prevalence of Palm Concealment by 164
Locale in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.58: Prevalence of Face Touch by Respondents from 166
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.59: Prevalence of Face Touch by Respondents from Non- 167
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.60: Comparison of Prevalence of Face Touch by Locale in 168
True Statements and Lie Statements
Figure 4.61: Variation in Communication Variables by Locale in 171
True Statements
Figure 4.62: Variation in Communication Variables by Locale in 171
Lie Statements

xix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Number and Caption Page No.

Table 3.1: Institute-wise Detail of Total Samples Collected and its 68
Percentage
Table 3.2: Institute-wise Detail of Female and Male Respondents 69
Table 3.3: Institute-wise Detail of Respondents from Metropolitan 70
Areas and Non-Metropolitan Areas
Table 4.1: Prevalence of Voice Fumble in True Statements and Lie 83
Statements
Table 4.2: Chi-Square Tests on Voice Fumble Data in True 84
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.3: Prevalence of Voice Gap in True Statements and Lie 85
Statements
Table 4.4: Chi-Square Tests on Voice Gap Data in True Statements 87
and Lie Statements
Table 4.5: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement in True Statements 88
and Lie Statements
Table 4.6: Chi-Square Tests on Upward Eye Movement Data in True 89
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.7: Prevalence of Palm Concealment in True Statements and 90
Lie Statements
Table 4.8: Chi-Square Tests on Palm Concealment Data in True 92
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.9: Prevalence of Face Touch in True Statements and Lie 93
Statements
Table 4.10: Chi-Square Tests on Face Touch Data in True Statements 94
and Lie Statements
Table 4.11: Prevalence of Various Communication Variables in True 95
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.12: ANOVA for Various Communication Variables with 97
respect to True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.13: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Extroverts in True 99
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.14: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Introverts in True 100
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.15: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Fumble by 101
Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.16: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Extroverts in True 103
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.17: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Introverts in True Statements 104
and Lie Statements
Table 4.18: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Gap by Personality in 105
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.19: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Extroverts in 107
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.20: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Introverts in 108

xx
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.21: Comparison of Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by 109
Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.22: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Extroverts in True 111
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.23: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Introverts in True 112
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.24: Comparison of Prevalence of Palm Concealment by 113
Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.25: Prevalence of Face Touch by Extroverts in True 114
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.26: Prevalence of Face Touch by Introverts in True 116
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.27: Comparison of Prevalence of Face Touch by Personality 117
in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.28: Variation in Communication Variables by Personality in 118
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.29: ANOVA for Various Communication Variables in Lie 122
Statements with respect to Personality
Table 4.30: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Males in True Statements 124
and Lie Statements
Table 4.31: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Females in True 125
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.32: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Gender in 126
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.33: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Males in True Statements 127
and Lie Statements
Table 4.34: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Females in True Statements 129
and Lie Statements
Table 4.35: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Gap by Gender in 130
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.36: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Males in True 132
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.37: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Females in True 133
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.38: Comparison of Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by 134
Personality in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.39: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Males in True 136
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.40: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Females in True 137
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.41: Comparison of Prevalence of Palm Concealment by 138
Gender in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.42: Prevalence of Face Touch by Males in True Statements 140
and Lie Statements
Table 4.43: Prevalence of Face Touch by Females in True Statements 141
and Lie Statements
Table 4.44: Comparison of Prevalence of Face Touch by Gender in 142
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.45: Variation in Communication Variables by Gender in True 143

xxi
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.46: ANOVA for Various Communication Variables in Lie 147
Statements with respect to Gender
Table 4.47: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Respondents from 149
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.48: Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Respondents from Non- 150
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.49: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Fumble by Locale in 151
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.50: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Respondents from 153
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.51: Prevalence of Voice Gap by Respondents from Non- 154
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.52: Comparison of Prevalence of Voice Gap by Locale in 155
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.53: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Respondents 157
from Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.54: Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by Respondents 159
from Non-Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.55: Comparison of Prevalence of Upward Eye Movement by 160
Locale in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.56: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Respondents from 162
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.57: Prevalence of Palm Concealment by Respondents from 163
Non-Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.58: Comparison of Prevalence of Palm Concealment by 164
Locale in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.59: Prevalence of Face Touch by Respondents from 166
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.60: Prevalence of Face Touch by Respondents from Non- 167
Metropolitan Areas in True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.61: Comparison of Prevalence of Face Touch by Locale in 168
True Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.62: Variation in Communication Variables by Locale in True 169
Statements and Lie Statements
Table 4.63: ANOVA for Various Communication Variables in Lie 173
Statements with respect to Locale
Table 4.64: Summary of Hypothesis Testing 174

xxii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

VF Voice Fumble
VG Voice Gap
EM Upward Eye Movement
PC Palm Concealment
FT Face Touch
TS True Statements
LS Lie Statements
OS Overall Statements
M Male Gender
F Female Gender
E Extrovert Personality
I Introvert Personality
T Metropolitan Areas
N Non-Metropolitan Areas
EPQ Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

xxiii
1