Do people detect deception the way they think they do? Replication and extensions

  1. Nuria Sánchez 1
  2. Jaume Masip 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915,  1886-144X

Year of publication: 2020

Volume: 32

Issue: 3

Pages: 329-336

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2019.405 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Background: Research shows that people believe deception can be detected from behavioral cues despite their past experience of detecting lies from non-behavioral, contextual information (evidence, third-person reports, etc.). However, in previous research, the question about beliefs was necessarily general, while the question about revealing information was always about a specific lie. In this study, we addressed this problem. Method: Participants first indicated how they believed lies can be detected (beliefs; Questionnaire 1 or Q1). Next, they described either how they, in their past, detected a specific lie, several lies, or how they, in general, detect lies in their everyday lives (revealing information; Q2). Results: Regardless of the focus of Q2, and in line with prior research, behavioral cues were reported less often, and contextual indicators more often, in responding to Q2 than in responding to Q1. However, contrary to prior findings, behavioral cues still predominated in the responses to Q2. Conclusions: We found no evidence that the specific-vs.-general focus of the questions changed the pattern of results, which apparently depended solely on whether participants reported beliefs or revealing information. We provide explanations for the prevalence of behavioral cues in Q2 responses, and make suggestions for future research.

Bibliographic References

  • Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01382.x
  • Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., Reimer, T. O., & McCluskey, J. D. (2012). The gap between reality and research. Another look at detecting deception in field settings. Policing: An International Journal, 35, 723-740. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511211275553
  • Blair, J. P., Reimer, T. O., & Levine, T. R. (2018). The role of consistency in detecting deception: The superiority of correspondence over coherence. Communication Studies, 69, 483-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1447492
  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214- 234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
  • Bond, C. F., Jr., Howard, A. R., Hutchison, J. L., & Masip, J. (2013). Overlooking the obvious: Incentives to lie. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 212-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.764302
  • Brunner, E., Domhof, S., & Langer, F. (2002). Nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. New York: Wiley.
  • Brunner, E., & Puri, M. L. (2001). Nonparametric methods in factorial designs. Statistical Papers, 42, 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003620000039
  • Cliff, N. (1993). Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 494-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494
  • Cliff, N. (1996). Ordinal methods for behavioral data analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
  • Erceg-Hurn, D. M., & Mirosevich, V. M. (2008). Modern robust statistical methods. An easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American Psychologist, 63, 591-601. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.591
  • Global Deception Research Team (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295
  • Levine, T. R. (2018). Ecological validity and deception detection research design. Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1411471
  • Levine, T. R. (2020). Duped. Truth-default theory and the social science of lying and deception. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
  • Luke, T. J. (2019). Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 646- 671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619838258
  • Masip, J. (2017). Deception detection: State of the art and future prospects. Psicothema, 29, 149-159. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2017.34
  • Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2015). Police detection of deception: Beliefs about behavioral cues to deception are strong even though contextual evidence is more useful. Journal of Communication, 65, 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12135
  • Masip, J., & Sánchez, N. (2019). How people really suspect lies: A re-examination of Novotny et al.’s (2018) data. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 43, 481-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00309-y
  • Noguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., & Konietschke, F. (2012). nparLD: An R software package for the nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. Journal of Statistical Software, 50(12), 1-23.
  • Nortje, A., & Tredoux, C. (2019). How good are we at detecting deception? A review of current techniques and theories. South African Journal of Psychology, 49, 491-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246318822953
  • Novotny, E., Carr, Z., Frank, M. G., Dietrich, S. B., Shaddock, T., Cardwell, M., & Decker, A. (2018). How people really suspect and discover lies. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-017-0263-2
  • Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, S. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/714041710
  • Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2008). Verbal and nonverbal behavior as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 477-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.012
  • Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2010). Content versus source cue information as a basis for credibility judgments: The impact of task involvement. Social Psychology, 41, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000014
  • Reinhard, M.-A., Sporer, S. L., Scharmach, M., & Marksteiner, T. (2011). Listening, not watching: Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 467-484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023726
  • Rogmann, J. (2013). orddom: Ordinal dominance statistics. R package. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/orddom/
  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-446. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1190
  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1
  • Stiff, J. B., Miller, G. R., Sleight, C., Mongeau, P., Garlick, R., & Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 555- 564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.555
  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Data source: Dialnet