Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:40:27.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EVOLUTION OF TESTIMONY: RECEIVER VIGILANCE, SPEAKER HONESTY AND THE RELIABILITY OF COMMUNICATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2013

Kourken Michaelian
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on both empirical evidence and evolutionary considerations, Sperber et al. argue that humans have a suite of evolved mechanisms for ‘epistemic vigilance’. On their view, vigilance plays a crucial role in ensuring the reliability and hence the evolutionary stability of communication. This article responds to their argument for vigilance, drawing on additional empirical evidence (from deception detection research) and evolutionary considerations (from animal signalling research) to defend a more optimistic, quasi-Reidian view of communication. On this alternative view, the lion's share of the responsibility for explaining the reliability of testimony falls not to the vigilance of receivers but rather to the honesty of communicators, implying that vigilance does not play a major role in explaining the evolutionary stability of communication.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 37 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bond, Charles F., and Depaulo, Bella M. 2006. ‘Accuracy of Deception Judgments.’ Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3): 214–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christ, Shawn E., Van Essen, David C., Watson, Jason M., Brubaker, Lindsay E., and McDermott, Kathleen B. 2009. ‘The Contributions of Prefrontal Cortex and Executive Control to Deception: Evidence from Activation Likelihood Estimate Meta-Analyses.’ Cerebral Cortex, 19(7): 1557–66.Google Scholar
Clément, Fabrice. 2010. ‘To Trust or Not to Trust? Children's Social Epistemology.’ Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(4): 531–49.Google Scholar
Clément, Fabrice, Koenig, Melissa, and Harris, Paul. 2004. ‘The Ontogenesis of Trust.’ Mind and Language, 19(4): 360–79.Google Scholar
Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corriveau, Kathleen, and Harris, Paul L. 2009. ‘Choosing your Informant: Weighing Familiarity and Recent Accuracy.’ Developmental Science, 12(3): 426–37.Google Scholar
Corriveau, Kathleen, Fusaro, Maria, and Harris, Paul L. 2009. ‘Going with the Flow: Preschoolers Prefer Nondissenters as Informants.’ Psychological Science, 20(3): 372–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronk, Lee. 2005. ‘The Application of Animal Signaling Theory to Human Phenomena: Some Thoughts and Clarifications.’ Social Science Information, 44(4): 603–20.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R., and Krebs, J. R. 1978. ‘Animal Signals: Information or Manipulation?’ In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, R. N. (eds), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, pp. 282–309. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
DePaulo, Bella M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., and Epstein, J. A. 1996. ‘Lying in Everyday Life.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5): 979–5.Google Scholar
DePaulo, Bella M., Lindsay, James J., Malone, Brian E., Muhlenbruck, Laura, Charlton, Kelly, and Cooper, Harris. 2003. ‘Cues to Deception.’ Psychological Bulletin, 129(1): 74–118.Google Scholar
Dunning, David. 2011. ‘Get Thee to a Laboratory.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1): 18–19.Google Scholar
Einav, Shiri, and Hood, Bruce M. 2008. ‘Tell-Tale Eyes: Children's Attribution of Gaze Aversion as a Lying Cue.’ Developmental Psychology, 44(6): 1655–67.Google Scholar
Frankish, Keith. 2010. ‘Dual-Process and Dual-System Theories of Reasoning.’ Philosophy Compass, 5(10): 914–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giardini, Francesca. 2011. ‘Deterrence and Transmission as Mechanisms Ensuring Reliability of Gossip.’ Cognitive Processing (Oct.): 1–11.Google Scholar
Global Deception Research Team. 2006. ‘A World of Lies.’ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1): 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 1992. Liaisons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gombos, Victor A. 2006. ‘The Cognition of Deception: The Role of Executive Processes in Producing Lies.’ Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(3): 197–214.Google Scholar
Grose, Jonathan. 2011. ‘Modelling and the Fall and Rise of the Handicap Principle.’ Biology and Philosophy, 26(5): 677–96.Google Scholar
Jaswal, Vikram K., and Neely, Leslie A. 2006. ‘Adults Don't Always Know Best.’ Psychological Science, 17(9): 757–8.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. 2004. ‘The Contribution of Executive Processes to Deceptive Responding.’ Neuropsychologia, 42(7): 878–901.Google Scholar
Kogan, Aleksandr, Saslow, Laura R., Impett, Emily A., Oveis, Christopher, Keltner, Dacher, and Saturn, Sarina Rodrigues. 2011. ‘Thin-Slicing Study of the Oxytocin Receptor (OXTR) Gene and the Evaluation and Expression of the Prosocial Disposition.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Nov.).Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., and Dawkins, R. 1984. ‘Animal Signals: Mind-Reading and Manipulation.’ In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, pp. 380–402. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Lachmann, Michael, Számadó, Szabolcs, and Bergstrom, Carl T. 2001. ‘Cost and Conflict in Animal Signals and Human Language.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(23): 13189–94 (Nov.).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, Timothy R. 2010. ‘A Few Transparent Liars: Explaining 54% Accuracy in Deception Detection Experiments.’ In Salmon, C. T. (ed.), Communication Yearbook 34, pp. 41–61. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levine, Timothy R., and Kim, Rachel K. 2010. ‘Some Considerations for a New Theory of Deceptive Communication.’ In Knapp, M. and McGlone, M. (eds), The Interplay of Truth and Deception, pp. 16–34. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levine, Timothy R., Kim, Rachel K., and Hamel, Lauren M. 2010. ‘People Lie for a Reason: Three Experiments Documenting the Principle of Veracity.’ Communication Research Reports, 27(4): 271–85.Google Scholar
Levine, Timothy R., Kim, Rachel K., Park, Hee S., and Hughes, Mikayla. 2006. ‘Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model.’ Communication Monographs, 73(3): 243–60.Google Scholar
Levine, Timothy R., Park, Hee S., and McCornack, Steven A. 1999. ‘Accuracy in Detecting Truths and Lies: Documenting the Veracity Effect.’ Communication Monographs, 66(2): 125–44.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 2008. ‘Cost and Complexity: Selection for Speech and Language.’ Journal of Theoretical Biology, 251(4): 640–52.Google Scholar
McKay, Ryan T., and Dennett, Daniel C. 2009. ‘The Evolution of Misbelief.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(6): 493–510.Google Scholar
Mascaro, Olivier, and Sperber, Dan. 2009. ‘The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children's Vigilance towards Deception.’ Cognition, 112(3): 367–80.Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Sperber, Dan. 2011. ‘Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2): 57–74.Google Scholar
Michaelian, Kourken. 2010. ‘In Defence of Gullibility: The Epistemology of Testimony and the Psychology of Deception Detection.’ Synthese, 176(3): 399–427.Google Scholar
Mohamed, Feroze B., Faro, Scott H., Gordon, Nathan J., Platek, Steven M., Ahmad, Harris, and Williams, J. Michael. 2006. ‘Brain Mapping of Deception and Truth Telling about an Ecologically Valid Situation: Functional MR Imaging and Polygraph Investigation Initial Experience 1.’ Radiology, 238(2): 679–88.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, M. 2003. ‘The Fundamental Attribution Error in Detecting Deception: The Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Effect.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 1316–27.Google Scholar
Park, Hee S., and Levine, Timothy. 2001. ‘A Probability Model of Accuracy in Deception Detection Experiments.’ Communication Monographs, 68(2): 201–10.Google Scholar
Park, Hee S., Levine, Timothy, McCornack, Steven, Morrison, Kelly, and Ferrara, Merissa. 2002. ‘How People Really Detect Lies.’ Communication Monographs, 69(2): 144–57.Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, Thomas C. 2008. ‘On the Correct Application of Animal Signalling Theory to Human Communication.’ In Smith, A. D. M., Smith, K., and Ferrer i Cancho, R. (eds), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Evolution of Language, pp. 275–82. World Scientific.Google Scholar
Searcy, W. R., and Nowicki, S. 2005. The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signalling Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Serota, Kim B., Levine, Timothy R., and Boster, Franklin J. 2010. ‘The Prevalence of Lying in America: Three Studies of Self-Reported Lies.’ Human Communication Research, 36(1): 2–25.Google Scholar
Smith, M. J., and Harper, D. G C. 1995. ‘Animal Signals: Models and Terminology.’ Journal of Theoretical Biology (Dec.): 305–11.Google Scholar
Smith, M. J., and Harper, D. G C. 2003. Animal Signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, W. J. 1977. The Behaviour of Communicating: An Ethological Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, Sean A., and Kaylor-Hughes, Catherine J. 2008. ‘Looking for Truth and Finding Lies: The Prospects for a Nascent Neuroimaging of Deception.’ Neurocase, 14(1): 68–81.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2001. ‘An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.’ Philosophical Topics 29: 401–13.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., and Wilson, D. 2010. ‘Epistemic Vigilance.’ Mind and Language, 25(4): 359–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, Stephen P. 1990. The Fragmentation of Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Számadó, Szabolcs. 2011. ‘The Cost of Honesty and the Fallacy of the Handicap Principle.’ Animal Behaviour, 81(1): 3–10.Google Scholar
van Rooy, Robert. 2003. ‘Being Polite is a Handicap: Towards a Game Theoretical Analysis of Polite Linguistic Behavior.’ Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, TARK '03, pp. 45–58. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Verschuere, Bruno, Spruyt, Adriaan, Meijer, Ewout H., and Otgaar, Henry. 2010. ‘The Ease of Lying.’ Consciousness and Cognition (Nov.).Google Scholar
von Hippel, William, and Trivers, Robert. 2011. ‘The Evolution and Psychology of Self-Deception.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Vrij, Aldert. 2008. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. 2nd edn.Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vrij, Aldert 2011. ‘Self-Deception, Lying, and the Ability to Deceive.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1): 40–1.Google Scholar
Vrij, Aldert, Fisher, Ronald, Mann, Samantha, and Leal, Sharon. 2006. ‘Detecting Deception by Manipulating Cognitive Load.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4): 141–2.Google Scholar
Vrij, Aldert, Granhag, Pär A., Mann, Samantha, and Leal, Sharon. 2011. ‘Outsmarting the Liars: Toward a Cognitive Lie Detection Approach.’ Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1): 28–32.Google Scholar
Vrij, Aldert, Mann, Samantha, Fisher, Ronald, Leal, Sharon, Milne, Rebecca, and Bull, Ray. 2008. ‘Increasing Cognitive Load to Facilitate Lie Detection: The Benefit of Recalling an Event in Reverse Order.’ Law and Human Behavior, 32(3): 253–65.Google Scholar
Willis, Janine, and Todorov, Alexander. 2006. ‘First Impressions.’ Psychological Science, 17(7): 592–8.Google Scholar
Wolpe, Paul R., Foster, Kenneth R., and Langleben, Daniel D. 2010. ‘Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils.’ American Journal of Bioethics, 10(10): 40–8.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A., and Zahavi, A. 1997. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zebrowitz, L. A. 1999. Reading Faces: Window to the Soul? Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar