Catching the liar as a matter of justice: Effects of belief in a just world on deception detection accuracy and the moderating role of mortality salience

Belief in a just world has been linked to high interpersonal trust and less suspicion of deception. We therefore predicted people with a strong dispositional belief in a just world to have low motivation to accurately detect deception. Accordingly, we hypothesized such a belief to be negatively related to accuracy in deception detection. Furthermore, research on Terror Management Theory has indicated that culturally shared values, such as justice, become more important after mortality salience. Thus, we assumed engaging in justice concerns after a death threat is especially relevant for people with a strong belief in a just world, and further, that accurate deception detection is a matter of justice. Based on this reasoning, we expected people with a strong belief in a just world to have an increased motivation to accurately detect deception after mortality salience. Consequently, we hypothesized dispositional differences in belief in a just world to be unrelated to accuracy in deception detection after mortality salience. In line with these predictions, our study revealed that participants with a strong (vs. weak) belief in a just world were worse in deception detection unless they had first been reminded of their mortality.     

SELF-MONITORING,REHEARSAL, AND DECEPTIVE COMMUNICATION

This study examined the effects of self-monitoring and rehearsal on the ability of observers to detect deception and on the behavioral correlates of deception. It was hypothesized that observers would be more accurate at detecting deception perpetrated by low self-monitors than by high self-monitors, with the difference particularly pronounced when messages were rehearsed. In addition, low self-monitors communicating spontaneously were expected to display greater rates of verbal and nonverbal responding than high self-monitors who planned their communications. Sixteen high and low self-monitors both lied and told the truth (either spontaneously or after 20-minute rehearsals) regarding their feelings while viewing slides of pleasant landscapes and of disfigured burn victims. Analysis of the responses of the 151 observers who made veracity judgments supported the hypothesis concerning accuracy of deception detection. Coding of 10 verbal and nonverbal behaviors revealed that unrehearsed low self-monitors displayed significantly greater pause and nonfluency rates than rehearsed high self-monitors. Additional findings are reported regarding the effects of self-monitoring, rehearsal, and truthful versus deceptive communication on the behavioral correlates of deception.     

It's not what you are,it's what you know: experience,beliefs, and the detection of deception in employment interviews

This study investigated the ability of more or less experienced employment interviewers and laypersons to detect deception in employment interviews. Although correct beliefs about indicators of deception led to higher deception detection accuracy, more experienced employment interviewers did not show more accurate beliefs about indicators of deception and did not perform better at detecting deception than less experienced interviewers and laypersons. Furthermore, more experienced interviewers showed a less‐pronounced tendency of judging messages as true irrespective of their actual truthfulness (truth bias) than less experienced interviewers and laypersons. It is suggested that experience in employment interviewing does not automatically lead to higher deception detection abilities in employment interviews, but that correcting people's beliefs about indicators of deception can do so.     

Training Observers to Detect Deception Effects of Self-Monitoring and Rehearsal

It was predicted that trained observers would detect deception more accurately than untrained observers. More specifically, it was predicted that the highest deception detection accuracy would be found among trained observers judging the veracity of low self-monitors and unrehearsed liars, whereas the lowest detection accuracy would be found among untrained observers judging the veracity of high self-monitors and rehearsed deceivers. It also was hypothesized that the discrepancy between observers‘actual ability to detect deception and their certainty in the accuracy of their judgments would be smaller for trained observers than for untrained observers. Observers trained to detect deception used six behavioral cues based on research by deTurck and Miller (1985): (a) message duration, (b) response latency, (c) adaptors, (d) pauses, (e) nonfluencies, and (f) hand gestures. Results confirmed both hypotheses.     

The case of Pinocchio: teachers’ ability to detect deception

In a study with 365 teacher students, 447 teacher trainees, and 123 teachers, the ability to detect students’ deception was tested. Participants judged the credibility of videotaped students who were accused of academic dishonesty (having cheated in a test). Half of these messages were actually true (students had not cheated on the test) and half of them were deceptive (students had cheated on the test). As expected and in line with findings on the influence of expertise on the ability to detect deception from other fields, we found that the overall accuracy rate of teachers was not higher than that of teacher trainees and teacher students. Moreover, we found no effect of teaching experience (years working as a teacher) on overall detection of deception accuracy. Interestingly, teachers were found to have a stronger truth bias and therefore had a lower accuracy in detecting deceptive messages than teacher students and teacher trainees (veracity effect). While teacher characteristics accounted for very little variance, senders’ opportunity to prepare and their gender had strong effects. Detection accuracy was higher for messages where the student had no chance to prepare before being accused of cheating. Overall, independent, or experience, participants hold inaccurate beliefs about deception.     

说谎的非言语视觉线索

说谎是一种非常普遍的社会现象。及时有效地识别说谎, 在人际交往和司法安防领域都具有十分重要的意义。根据说谎的自主性, 将说谎研究的实验范式分为被动说谎范式、主动说谎范式和混合说谎范式三大类。个体说谎时具有较高的认知负荷、较强的情绪唤醒和刻意的自我控制等心理活动特点, 这些心理活动会导致眼睛运动、面部表情、姿态动作等非言语视觉线索的变化, 且非言语视觉线索存在个体差异。未来研究应深入考察说谎的内在心理机制以及非言语视觉线索的心理意义, 加强真实情境下说谎行为的研究, 并借助新技术实现对非言语视觉线索的精准测量和分析。     

Science and the CQT polygraph. A theoretical critique

Despite substantial contrary scientific evidence, polygraph tests to detect deception continue to be employed in the United States. It is argued that polygraph tests (in particular, the Control Question Technique) lack construct validity. Polygraph tests do not assess deceptiveness, but rather are situations designed to elicit and assess fear. Correct decisions may be obtained when subjects fear detection; however, because there is no way to determine the cause of a subject's fear or anxiety, validation is impossible. The paper also considers other physiological detection paradigms and concludes that because of the nature of honesty their use to detect deception is unlikely.     

Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked

In this paper we argue that there is little need for more of the traditional deception detection research in which observers assess short video clips in which there are few (if any) cues to deception and truth. We argue that a change in direction is needed and that researchers should focus on the questions the interviewer needs to ask in order to elicit and enhance cues to deception. We discuss three strands of research into this new ‘interviewing to detect deception’ approach. We encourage practitioners to use the proposed techniques and encourage other researchers to join us in conducting more research in this area. We offer some guidelines for what researchers need to keep in mind when carrying out research in this new paradigm.     

Science and the CQT polygraph

Despite substantial contrary scientific evidence, polygraph tests to detect deception continue to be employed in the United States. It is argued that polygraph tests (in particular, the Control Question Technique) lack construct validity. Polygraph tests do not assess deceptiveness, but rather are situations designed to elicit and assess fear. Correct decisions may be obtained when subjects fear detection; however, because there is no way to determine the cause of a subject’s fear or anxiety, validation is impossible. The paper also considers other physiological detection paradigms and concludes that because of the nature of honesty their use to detect deception is unlikely.     

Behavioral Cues as Indicators of Deception in Structured Employment Interviews

Two studies were conducted to examine the use of behavioral cues to identify deception within structured interviews. In Study 1, participants engaged in mock interviews in which they were instructed to lie on specific questions that varied by person. Trained coders evaluated the presence and extent of deception cues in each videotaped response. Nine cues predicted responses as expected, demonstrating that, with careful scrutiny, it is possible to detect deception. In Study 2, participants, either informed or uninformed regarding deception cues, viewed five interviews and evaluated responses as being honest or deceptive. Participants also rated overall interview performance. Participants were unable to accurately distinguish lies from truths. Nevertheless, performance ratings differed on the basis of rater perceptions of truthfulness.     

Adults' ability to detect children's lying

Adults are poor deception detectors when examining lies told by adults, on average. However, there are some adults who are better at detecting lies than others. Children learn to lie at a very young age, a behavior that is socialized by parents. Yet, less is known about the ability to detect children's lies, particularly with regard to individual differences in the ability to detect this deception. The current study explored adult raters' ability to discern honesty in children who lied or told the truth about committing a misdeed. Results showed that adults are no better at detecting children's lies than they are with adult lies. In particular, adults were very poor at identifying children's honest statements. However, individual differences did emerge, suggesting that the ability to detect lying in children might be facilitated by relevant experience working with children. Implications for legal and mental health contexts are discussed.     

The admissibility of expert testimony regarding malingering and deception

This article discusses the legal admissibility of expert testimony and the ability of mental health professionals to detect malingering and deception among defendants. A legal analysis of the admissibility of expert testimony regarding malingering and deception in formal legal proceedings is presented. Some guidelines are provided to help mental health professionals and attorneys determine the admissibility of evidence they intend to introduce. Although psychologists and psychiatrists currently have a limited ability to identify accurately malingering and deception, expert testimony about the genuineness of a defendant's mental illness is likely to be held admissible for both practical and evidentiary reasons. In contrast, evidence about a witness' credibility is rarely admissible. In addition, psychologists are ethically obliged to recognize their limitations in making representations about their skills.     

Detecting deception in a bluffing body: The role of expertise

Studies of deception detection traditionally have focused on verbal communication. Nevertheless, people commonly deceive others through nonverbal cues. Previous research has shown that intentions can be inferred from the ways in which people move their bodies. Furthermore, motor expertise within a given domain has been shown to increase visual sensitivity to other people’s movements within that domain. Does expertise also enhance deception detection from bodily movement? In two psychophysical studies, experienced basketball players and novices attempted to distinguish deceptive intentions (fake passes) and veridical intentions (true passes) from an observed individual’s actions. Whereas experts and novices performed similarly with postural cues, only experts could detect deception from kinematics alone. These results demonstrate a link between action expertise and the detection of nonverbal deception.     

欺骗识别的准确率：影响因素与提高途径

欺骗是一种常见的社会现象,通过观察他人的行为表现识别欺骗则是人们的一项重要能力。研究表明,人们的欺骗识别能力仅仅略微高于随机水平。本文关注基于行为线索的欺骗识别研究。首先,介绍欺骗识别的准确率;然后,结合Brunswik的透镜模型从欺骗线索的有效性和欺骗线索的利用两方面分析识别准确率的影响因素;并在此基础上探讨了提高识别准确率的途径。最后,对未来可能的研究方向进行展望。     

Reviewers and the Detection of Deceptive Information in Recorded Interviews

Being able to detect deceptive information early is worthwhile for recruiters and other information‐based organizational workers; unfortunately, people generally are not good at detecting deception successfully. We conducted an experiment to determine how successful reviewers can be at detecting deception in several types of dispersed interviews. The results indicated that reviewers were more accurate at detecting deceptive information than were participant interviewers; that a warning about deception's presence improved reviewers' detection accuracy; and that a warning did not have any effect on reviewers' number of false alarms between text and audio media. These findings imply that if reviewers are warned about the possible presence of deception, organizations might be able to minimize the chance of hiring high‐risk job applicants.     

Cues to Deception in the Employment Interview

Candidates' use of deceptive impression management (IM) during the employment interview has been found to influence employment outcomes. Unfortunately, interviewers are often unable to detect when deceptive IM is used. The current study applied research on cues to deception to the employment interview context to examine which micro‐ and macro‐level behavioral cues are indicators of deceptive IM. One hundred nine individuals completed mock employment interviews. We found that interviewees who used deceptive IM exhibited restrained facial behavior (i.e., less smiling), unrestrained verbal behavior (i.e., more speaking errors, less silences), and, unexpectedly, gave off the impression of being less anxious. The results suggest that behavioral cues have promise for future efforts to increase interviewers' ability to detect deception.     

Adults' difficulties in identifying concealment among children interviewed with the putative confession instructions

The putative confession (PC) instructions (“[suspect] told me everything that happened and wants you to tell the truth”) increases children's honesty. However, research has shown that children who maintain secrecy despite the PC are more convincing. We examined whether (a) the PC undermines adults' deception detection abilities or (b) children who conceal despite the PC are better deceivers. Adults evaluated truthful and deceptive children interviewed with the PC where the PC portion of the interview was either present or absent. Adults' deception detection was no worse when the PC was present; in fact, it was slightly better. Rather than negatively affecting adults' ability to detect deception, the PC selects an unusually convincing group of concealers.     

Effects of Deception on Children's Understanding of Second‐order False Belief

This research examined two questions: effects of deception on children's understanding of second‐order false belief, and possible effects of number of siblings on second‐order performance. Kindergarten children responded to 3 second‐order problems that varied in the presence and the nature of deception. Performance was better on the problems with deception, but significantly so only when the target for the belief attribution produced the deception. This finding helps to clarify differences between the two main paradigms for assessing second‐order false belief. There was no relation between number of siblings and performance. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Police officers' beliefs about,and use of,cues to deception

Meta‐analytic findings indicate that people, including police officers, are generally poor at detecting low‐stakes deception. Related to this, investigations of behaviours that people reportedly use to make truth or lie judgements tend to conclude that people rely on incorrect stereotypes. However, consistent findings suggest that police officers are able to detect high‐stakes deception; this implies that, at least in some contexts, police officers utilise reliable cues to deception. The research presented here was an investigation of cues to deception used by police officers (N  = 69), when making veracity decisions about real world, high‐stakes communications. Data were collected on both free report cues, and also prescribed cues that were known (from previous research), to discriminate between liars and truth‐tellers in the communications that the police officers observed. Officers free reported using cues related to verbal content, emotion, body language, eyes, vocal cues, and external cues. Most prescribed cues were self‐reportedly used correctly by large majorities of the officers, suggesting that they may not rely on inaccurate stereotypes. Self‐report use of categories of free report cues, and prescribed cues, was not related to accuracy in detecting deception. As people may not always be aware of the behaviours on which their judgements are based, the relationships between some of the behaviours actually displayed in the communications, and group accuracy in detecting deception in those communications, were also investigated. Group accuracy was related to the presence of subjective, emotion‐related cues in the communications.     

THE TRUTH-DECEPTION ATTRIBUTION: EFFECTS OF FAMILIARITY ON THE ABILITY OF OBSERVERS TO DETECT DECEPTION

This study investigated the relationship between an observer's familiarity with the normal, truthful communicative behavior of an individual, and the observer's ability to detect deception on the part of that individual. Specifically, an attempt was made to provide an experimental test of the degree of linearity between familiarity and judgmental accuracy in detecting deception. After exposure to varying amounts of a communicator's normal, truthful behavior (baseline segment), observers made judgments of a communicator's veracity following observation of truthful or lying behavior (test segment). The results indicate a significant deviation from linearity in the relationship between familiarity and judgmental accuracy, and that the relationship is better described by an inverted parabolic curve (quadratic function). The possibility of information overload, the possibility of communicator-specific characteristics which provide clues to deception, and the possibility of observer fatigue were proposed as possible explanations of these results.