The effect of statement type and repetition on deception detection
- PMID: 31549260
- PMCID: PMC6757075
- DOI: 10.1186/s41235-019-0194-z
The effect of statement type and repetition on deception detection
Abstract
Background: Deception is a prevalent component of human interaction. However, meta-analyses suggest that discriminating between truthful and deceptive statements is a very arduous task and accuracy on these judgments is at chance levels. To complicate matters further, individuals tell different types of lies. The current studies examined how an individual's ability to accurately discriminate between truthful and deceptive statements is affected by the way truths and lies are conveyed. Participants judged the veracity of statements given by speakers who told truths or lies about a performed action by describing that action or denying that it had occurred. Additionally, these statements also differed with regard to how often the lie had been repeated (i.e., practiced), either once or thrice.
Results: The results were largely in line with the prevailing notion that it is difficult to successfully differentiate between truthful and deceptive statements, but also showed that performance was moderated by statement type and repetition. The results revealed that participants were more accurate in discriminating unrepeated descriptions than repeated descriptions, but this difference was not seen for denial statements. Additionally, participants were more likely to believe practiced (repeated) statements, both truthful and deceptive.
Conclusion: The results show that repeated statements as well as shorter denials can increase the difficulty of differentiating truthful from deceptive statements. Additionally, these findings suggest that truthful statements also benefit from repetition with regard to enhancing their believability.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
A true denial or a false confession? Assessing veracity of suspects' statements using MASAM and SVA.PLoS One. 2018 Jun 1;13(6):e0198211. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198211. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 29856813 Free PMC article.
-
The Electrocortical Signature of Successful and Unsuccessful Deception in a Face-to-Face Social Interaction.Front Hum Neurosci. 2020 Jul 17;14:277. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00277. eCollection 2020. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020. PMID: 32765242 Free PMC article.
-
Masking the truth: the impact of face masks on deception detection.J Soc Psychol. 2024 Sep 2;164(5):840-853. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2023.2195092. Epub 2023 Mar 29. J Soc Psychol. 2024. PMID: 36987617
-
When lying changes memory for the truth.Memory. 2018 Jan;26(1):2-14. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1340286. Epub 2017 Jun 22. Memory. 2018. PMID: 28661223 Review.
-
Millennia of legal content criteria of lies and truths: wisdom or common-sense folly?Front Psychol. 2023 Sep 12;14:1219995. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219995. eCollection 2023. Front Psychol. 2023. PMID: 37771816 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. - PubMed
-
- Bond, C. F., & Uysal, A. (2007). On lie detection “wizards”. Law and Human Behavior, 31(1), 109–115. - PubMed
-
- Colwell K, Hiscock-Anisman CK, Memon A, Taylor L, Prewett J. Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): an integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 2007;4(3):167–180. doi: 10.1002/jip.73. - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources