A new lie detector test shows that it takes on average 30% longer to lie than to be honest.  Following up with my post on how bioethics saves money by mitigating legal liability risk, now it appears being ethical saves time too.  In a world where time is money, that means bioethics equates to money money. 

[The Times of London] The discovery, following computer-based trials in Britain, will offer hope to law enforcement agencies struggling to keep pace with suspects who are getting better at lying.  The new device may also provide a more reliable alternative to conventional polygraphs, which critics believe implicate too many innocent people.

Aiden Gregg, a psychologist at Southampton University who developed the timed antagonistic response alethiometer (Tara), found that in 85% of cases interviewees were slower at faking answers than when telling the truth. Gregg believes that lying takes longer because it involves more complex cognitive activity.

The Tara test involves answering a series of questions displayed on a computer screen as quickly as possible by tapping responses on a keyboard. The programme records how long it takes each individual to answer and uses an algorithm to analyse the results.  Gregg said he built the test because he suspected that criminals were finding increasing ways to hide their dishonesty.

“Habitual liars heard that people look away when telling lies, so they stare directly into your eyes,” he said. “However, we are not getting any smarter at detecting lies, and that could have serious consequences.”

In America, where lie detectors are more widely used, psychologists working for the Department of Homeland Security are considering adding Tara to their armoury.

Last week, a Sunday Times reporter attempted to outwit the new lie detector, which takes into account the average response time of individuals according to their age. She was first required to enter some personal information, followed by details of a fictional character.  The reporter then answered two rounds of questions – the first truthfully as herself and the second dishonestly as she assumed the identity of the fictional person.

The Tara system recognised that the reporter took an average of 1.2 seconds to answer questions truthfully and 1.8 seconds to lie – about 33% longer.

Experts say the average person tells three lies in a 10-minute conversation, plus a wide range of minor omissions, exaggerations and bluffs. The average listener, however, can only spot fibs around 54% of the time, according to Gregg.

The psychologist warned that existing lie detectors such as polygraphs – which monitor physiological changes such as blood pressure and body temperature – implicate too many innocent people. Other interrogation techniques, such as the guilty knowledge test, which measures responses to loaded questions, may allow too many people to slip under the wire.

Gregg hopes to carry out field trials of the Tara system with Home Office funding later this year.

At present polygraph results are not valid in British courts, but the Ministry of Justice is beginning a three-year pilot in April that will subject sex offenders in the Midlands to regular polygraph tests.

Don Grubin, a professor of forensic psychiatry at Newcastle University, who ran a trial in which sex offenders took polygraph tests, found that in 70% of cases they disclosed unknown information.

He called for lie detecting to be used on a wider scale in the UK. “If we show it works with sex offenders there is no reason it would not work with other similar populations,” he said.