Defensive Tackle Haynesworth On The Attack: A Case Study of Deception

Washington Redskins defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth’s recent suspension by Coach Mike Shanahan has created widespread speculation about Haynesworth’s behavior, particularly with respect to reports that when he arrived at practice on Dec. 3, he was hung over. Haynesworth’s behavior in responding to them suggests to us that those reports are accurate, and it provides an opportunity for us to briefly explain a portion of our deception detection methodology.

Haynesworth discussed the allegations on Dec. 6, when he called in to a sports talk show on a Washington radio station. The host didn’t ask Haynesworth any specific questions, instead opting to give him an open forum to “address the people of Washington and set the story straight about what’s going on … with you and the Washington Redskins.”

Haynesworth on his own accord raised the question of whether he was hung over when he reported to practice, and in doing so exhibited several textbook deceptive behaviors. Most fundamentally, he failed to deny the accusations, which is a classic indicator of deception. Beyond that, his behavior included making what we call “convincing statements,” and engaging in the act of attacking the accuser.

Convincing statements aim to convince the listener of one’s innocence rather than to convey a direct response to a question or accusation. In this case, Haynesworth provided a textbook example:

“You look at my career, you look at my college career, there has never ever been alcohol involved. I have never been pulled over, never had a DUI and no public intoxication …”

Attack statements aim to place the blame on someone else, often the person making the accusation, as a means of directing the blame away from the accused. Again, Haynesworth’s behavior was textbook:

“…for these people to make up that [to] try to make me look bad, I mean it’s ridiculous. I mean, I think they’re cowards because if they have something to say, they should come to my face, not run to the media and try to blast me, you know, behind my back.”

These behaviors are considered to be indicators of deception with highest confidence when they are exhibited in direct response to a question. Although Haynesworth did not make his comments in direct response to a specific question in this case, the implied question and the clear examples of deceptive behavior he provided enable us to conclude that he was not being totally honest about the real reason for his inability or lack of desire to practice that day, and that speculation that he was hung over may well be justified.