Expertise in Deception Detection Involves Actively Prompting Diagnostic Information Rather Than Passive Behavioral Observation |
| |
| Authors: | Timothy Roland Levine David Daniel Clare J. Pete Blair Steve McCornack Kelly Morrison Hee Sun Park |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Media and Communication, Korea University, , Seoul, 136‐701 Republic of Korea;2. Department of Communication, Michigan State University, , East Lansing, MI, 48823 USA;3. School of Criminal Justice, Texas State University, , San Marcos, TX USA;4. Department of Communication, Michigan State University, , East Lansing, MI, 48824‐1212 USA |
| |
| Abstract: | In a proof‐of‐concept study, an expert obtained 100% deception‐detection accuracy over 33 interviews. Tapes of the interactions were shown to N = 136 students who obtained 79.1% accuracy (Mdn = 83.3%, mode = 100%). The findings were replicated in a second experiment with 5 different experts who collectively conducted 89 interviews. The new experts were 97.8% accurate in cheating detection and 95.5% accurate at detecting who cheated. A sample of N = 34 students watched a random sample of 36 expert interviews and obtained 93.6% accuracy. The data suggest that experts can accurately distinguish truths from lies when they are allowed to actively question a potential liar, and nonexperts can obtain high accuracy when viewing expertly questioned senders. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
