Mann Lying Study Sample Practice Questions (Paper 1)
1. From the study by Mann et al. (lying) ‘self-manipulations’, ‘illustrators’ and ‘pauses’ were recorded behaviours.
Describe two examples of these behaviours. [4]
Self-manipulations: frequency of scratching the head, wrists etc. (touching the hands was counted as hand/finger
movements rather than self-manipulations) Illustrators: frequency of arm and hand movements which were designed to
modify and/or supplement what was being said verbally
Pauses: number of seconds where there is a noticeable pause in the monologue of the participant, when the suspect
actually stops between words for a period of approximately 0.5 s or more, stopping the free flow of conversation for a
period of time whilst the suspect thinks of the next word
1 mark partial (brief description), 2 marks full (detailed description), 2 marks per behaviour × 2
N.B. No marks for ‘mmm’/‘errr’ (speech disturbances)
N.B. No marks for identifying self-manipulations/illustrators/pauses as these are in the question.
Examples are likely to come from two different categories but do not have to.
2. The experiment by Mann et al. (lying) investigated whether the suspects were lying or telling the truth.
(a) Explain why this is an experiment. [2]
• has IV and DV (only if not next 2 points)
• IV (of lying or telling the truth) is manipulated
• DV (of gaze aversion, blinking etc.) is measured
• comparison between groups (lying or telling the truth) / looking for differences (between lying or telling the
truth)
• investigates causal relationships (lying affects behaviour)
• controls employed (coders unaware of reason for coding)
1 mark partial, 2 marks full (any two points, well explained or several weakly). Points do not have to be
contextualised for full marks but is likely to provide detail.
(b) Outline one advantage of laboratory experiments using Mann et al. as an example. [2]
Most likely:
controls employed: coders unaware of reason for coding
can manipulate IV: e.g. correctly select truth / lie segments of video
1 mark partial (advantage identified, however fully), 2 marks full (contextualised however briefly).
3. Describe two behaviours recorded by observers from the videotapes of suspects in the study by Mann et al
(lying). [4]
8 are given in the paper.
 Gaze aversion: number of seconds for which the participant looked away from the interviewer
 Blinking: frequency of eye blinks NB: blink more / blink less = 2 marks (as indicate that frequency was
measured)
 Head movements: frequency of head nods (upward and downward movement was counted as a separate
nod), head shakes (similar to head nods, each sideways movement was counted as a separate shake) and
Mann Lying Study Sample Practice Questions (Paper 1)
other head movements that were not included as head shakes or head nods (eg tilting the head to the side,
turning the face etc.)
 Self-manipulations: frequency of scratching of the head, wrists etc. (touching the hands was counted as
hand/finger movements rather than self-manipulations)
 Illustrators: frequency of arm and hand movements which were designed to modify and/or supplement
what was being said verbally
 Hand/finger movements: any other movements of the hands or fingers without moving the arms
 Speech disturbances: (they were scored on the basis of typed verbatim text) frequency of saying “ah” or
“mmm” etc. between words, frequency of word and/or sentence repetition, sentence change, sentence
incompletion, stutters etc.
 Pauses: Number of seconds where there is a noticeable pause in the monologue of the participant, when the
suspect actually stops between words for a period of approx 0.5s or more, stopping the free-flow of
conversation for a period of time whilst the suspect thinks of the next word.
1 mark for name of category, one for description (does not have to be in full) X2
4. From the study by Mann et al. (lying):
(a) Give two examples of crimes of which the suspects were accused. [2]
theft, arson, (attempted) rape, murder
1 mark per crime, × 2
(b) Describe what the researchers did to be sure that the sections of video they were using from the suspects
were definitely lies or truths. [2]
“The experimenter scoured the files looking for forensic evidence or substantial reliable independent witness
statements to corroborate instances of truth or lie as implicated by the investigating officer. An example of such
an appropriate case would be where the suspect initially denies any involvement in the crime, and then
confesses after being presented with substantial forensic/witness evidence. Cases without such evidence were
eliminated. Of the remaining appropriate cases, only those video clips where truth or lie had been strongly
supported by other convincing evidence were taped onto another videotape.”
1 mark partial (simple statement, e.g. about witness/forensic)
2 marks full (good description of one way, e.g. an example, or two ideas briefly)
e.g. Checking with police = 0 marks
Suspect changed mind from lie to truth when questioned = 1 mark
5. From the study by Mann et al. (lying):
(a) The observers who coded the behaviours on the videos were only told “to code the video footage”. Explain
why they were not given information about the hypothesis. [2]
Would have biased their decisions / introduced demand characteristics
1 mark partial (simple comment or unexplained term), 2 marks full (expanded comment or comment and relevant term)
Mann Lying Study Sample Practice Questions (Paper 1)
(b) How did Mann et al. ensure that the two coders were coding the video clips in similar ways? [2]
Did reliability checks on a random sample of 36 clips / 55% of clips (including all 16 suspects) checked using Pearson’s
correlations; Gaze aversion (r = .86); Blinking (r = .99); Head movements (r = .95); Self-manipulations (r = .99); Illustrators
(r = .99); Hand/finger movements (r = .99); Speech disturbances (r = .97). Deviations from the official English language (r
= .55).
The Pearson’s correlations show evidence of a strong consistency between the two coders.
t –tests were used to test for average differences between the two coders to ensure that the average scores for the two
coders did not differ. None of these t–tests were significant.
1 mark partial (simple comment, ‘name’ of test or ‘interrater/coder reliability test’), 2 marks full (expanded comment or
comment and relevant name/term)
6. Describe two aims from the study by Mann et al. (lying). [4]
Most likely:
• to investigate whether there are systematic differences in behaviour between lying and truthtelling;
• to investigate individual differences in behaviour during lying and truth-telling;
• to investigate real-life lying (of criminal);
• to investigate lying in high-stake settings (suspected of murder);
• to extend the work of Vrij and Mann (2001).
Accept other reasonable aims. No marks for ‘cognitive load’ (explanation of expectation, not aim).
1 mark partial, 2 marks full x2