Self-monitoring dan Kemampuan Verbal Terhadap Perilaku Berbohong
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31599/jki.v20i3.283Keywords:
self-monitoring, kemampuan verbal, denyut jantung, gerak mata, perilaku berbohongAbstract
Lies are carried out by individuals in many of their daily activities, the impact of lying is detrimental to others, and the perpetrators. The results of previous studies have explained that this happens because the perpetrator of lying can monitor his appearance so that it is difficult for the victim to see it as a lie. The most difficulty in recognizing lies is identifying indicators of lying. Therefore it is important to be able to identify indicators of lying behavior. Through two series of studies, this study aims to conduct an analysis of lying, through survey research and in-laboratory research. There were 74 subjects in the survey, and 60 people were involved to be the subject of experimental research. With details of 20 people as the lying group, 20 people as the honest group and 20 people as the neutral group. The results of the survey study found that self-monitoring is related to lying behavior, and self-monitoring also has a direct effect on lying behavior. Conversely, verbal ability is not related to lying. In the experimental study, it was found that the heart rate was different between the three experimental groups. Similar to the sound amplification (db) there was a significant difference between the three experimental groups, but the analysis of the sound wave pattern showed no difference. The results of the analysis of the response reactions and eye movements were not different. The empirical facts of this study can be used to identify indicators of lying behavior.
Keyword: self-monitoring, verbal ability, heart rate, eye movements, and lying behavior
Abstrak
Berbohong dilakukan oleh individu pada banyak di setiap aktivasnya sehari-hari, dampak dari perilaku berbohong merugikan orang lain, dan diri pelakunya. Hasil studi terdahulu menerangkan hal itu dapat terjadi karena pelaku berbohong dapat memantau tampilan keadaan dirinya sehingga sulit di lihat oleh korbannya sebagai kebohongan. Kesulitan terberat dalam mengenali kebohongan di dalam aktivas sehari–hari adalah mengenali indikator-indikator yang menjadi bagian dari perilaku berbohong. Berupa kemampuan verbal, reaksi memberikan jawaban, ekspresi wajah, denyut jantung, suara yang dikeluarkan. Oleh karenanya penting untuk dapat mengenali indikator tentang perilaku berbohong. Melalui dua rangkaian studi penelitian ini berupaya untuk melakukan analisis mengenai perilaku berbohong, secara penelitian survei dan penelitian di dalam laboratorium. Sebanyak 74 subjek dilibatkan di dalam proses studi survei. Kemudian sebanyak 60 orang dilibatkan untuk menjadi subjek penelitian eksperimen. Dengan rincian 20 orang untuk kelompok berbohong, 20 orang untuk kelompok jujur dan 20 orang untuk kelompok netral (bebas memilih bohong atau jujur). Hasil studi survei mendapatkan fakta bahwa self-monitoring berhubungan dengan perilaku berbohong, dan self-monitoring juga berpengaruh secara langsung terhadap perilaku berbohong. Sebaliknya kemampuan verbal tidak berhubungan dengan perilaku berbohong. Pada studi eksperimen didapatkan hasil bahwa denyut jantung terjadi perbedaan diantara tiga kelompok eksperimen. Begitupula dengan amplifikasi suara (db) terjadi perbedaan yang signifikan diantara ketiga kelompok eksperimen, akan tetapi analisis terhadap pola gelombang suara tidak menunjukkan adanya perbedaan. Begitu juga hasil analisis terhadap reaksi menjawab dan gerakan mata keduanya tidak didapatkan adanya perbedaan. Fakta empiris penelitian ini kiranya dapat dimanfaatkan untuk mengenal mengenai indikator perilaku berbohong.
Kata Kunci: self-monitoring, kemampuan verbal, denyut jantung, gerak mata, dan perilaku berbohong
Downloads
References
Azwar, S. (2017). Penyusunan Skala Psikologi. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Borza, D., Itu, R., & Danescu, R. (2018). In the eye of the deceiver: Analyzing eye movements as a cue to deception. Journal of Imaging, 4(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging4100120
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Floyd, K. (2001). Does Participation Affect Deception Success? 27(4), 503–534.
Critchley, H. D., & Garfinkel, S. N. (2017). Interoception and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.020
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender Differences in Preferences. 448–474.
Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99(1), 197–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.06.027
Duran, G., Tapiero, I., & Michael, G. A. (2018). Resting heart rate: A physiological predicator of lie detection ability. Physiology and Behavior, 186, 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.01.002
Ellis, A., & Beattie, G. (2017). The Psychology of Language and Communication. Routledge.
Flynn, F. J., & Ames, D. R. (2006). What’s good for the goose may not be as good for the gander: The benefits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and dyadic conflicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.272
Hogue, M., Levashina, J., & Hang, H. (2016). Will I Fake It ? The Interplay of Gender , Machiavellianism , and Self- monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews Will I Fake It ? The Interplay of Gender , Machiavellianism , and Self-monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews. (November). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1525-x
JR, joseph j. bango. (2003). POLY GRAPH UTILIZING MEDICAL IMAGING. 1(19).
Marshall, E., & Samuels, P. (2017). Checking normality for parametric tests One. 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.579191!/file/stcp-karadimitriou-normalR.pdf
Meijer, E. H., Verschuere, B., Gamer, M., Merckelbach, H., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2016). Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty. Psychophysiology, 53(5), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12609
Nelson, R. (2015). Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing Raymond Nelson. Polygraph, 44(1), 245.
Patrick, wendy l. (2018, April 19). Sound Too Good to Be True ? Recognizing the Sound of a Lie. Psychology Today, pp. 1–4.
Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The Application of Scientific Standards Post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.203
Schiller, N. O. (2005). Twenty First Century Psycholinguistic (A. Cutler, Ed.). New Jersey: lawrance Erlbaum Associate.
Schuetze, P., & Zeskind, P. S. (2001). What is Ecological Validity? A dimensional analysis. (773573598). https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0204
Sharma, M. D., & Bewes, J. (2011). J ournal of Learning Design Self-monitoring : Confidence , academic achievement and gender differences in physics. 4(3), 1–13.
Shibley, J., & Marcia, C. (1988). Gender Differences in Verbal Ability: A Meta-Analysis.
Snyder, Mark, U. M. (1974). Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/<a data-auto=“link” href=“javascript:__doLinkPostBack(’’,’ss~~DI%20%2210.1037%2Fh0037039%22%7C%7Csl~~rl’,’’);” title=“Search for 10.1037/h0037039” id=“link10.1037h0037039”>10.1037/h0037039</a>
Suchotzki, K., Verschuere, B., Bockstaele, B. Van, Ben-Shakhar, G., & Crombez, G. (2017). Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 143(4), 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000087
Sullivan, S., Campbell, A., Hutton, S. B., & Ruffman, T. (2017). What ’ s good for the goose is not good for the gander : Age and gender differences in scanning emotion faces. 72(3), 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv033
Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2008). Social and cognitive correlates of children’s lying behavior. Child Development, 79(4), 866–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01164.x
Villar, G., Arciuli, J., & Paterson, H. (2013). Vocal Pitch Production during Lying: Beliefs about Deception Matter. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.633320
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit (Pitfalls and Oppurtinity) (2nd ed.). British.
Walczyk, J. J., Schwartz, J. P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M., & Zha, P. (2005). Lying person-to-person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00484.x
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Brinke, L., Porter, S., Couper, S. L., & Rankin, C. (2012). The eyes don’t have it: Lie detection and neuro-linguistic programming. PLoS ONE, 7(7), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040259
Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling Lies: Verbal and nonverbal Correlates of Deception (pp. 129–130). pp. 129–130.
_-_Copy1.jpg)
