Individual and Small Group Accuracy in Judging Truthful and Deceptive Communication

We examined accuracy in detecting the truths and lies of 10 videotaped students who offered their opinions on the death penalty or smoking in public. Student lie detectors were randomly assigned to either the individual condition, where they reported their veracity judgments and confidence independently, or the small group condition, where they recorded their judgments privately and then deliberated with 5 other students before making a consensus judgment of lie, truth, or hung. Results indicated that small group judgments were more accurate than individual judgments when judging deceptive but not truthful communication. Small group individuals also reported greater confidence in their abilities after the task. Finally, groups with a greater number of hung judgments were more accurate, likely due to their employing hung judgments for the most difficult to judge stimulus communicators. These results raise implications for real life group judgments, particularly in light of the increasing availability of technology.

[1]  Gerald R. Miller,et al.  Training Observers to Detect Deception: Effects of Self-Monitoring and Rehearsal. , 1990 .

[2]  David B. Buller,et al.  Interpersonal deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. , 1991 .

[3]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Measuring facial expressions by computer image analysis. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[4]  P. Ekman,et al.  The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Beliefs About Cues to Deception: Mindless Stereotypes or Untapped Wisdom? , 1999 .

[6]  Klaus R. Scherer,et al.  Invited article: Face, voice, and body in detecting deceit , 1991 .

[7]  M. Zuckerman.  Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception , 1981 .

[8]  Mark A. deTurck,et al.  The Behavioral Correlates of Sanctioned and Unsanctioned Deceptive Communication , 1998 .

[9]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Linking Love and Lies: A Formal Test of the Mccornack and Parks Model of Deception Detection , 1992 .

[10]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages , 1996 .

[11]  Steven R. Corman,et al.  Individual Differences and Changes in Nonverbal Behavior , 1994 .

[12]  Deborah A. Kashy,et al.  Everyday lies in close and casual relationships , 1998 .

[13]  David T. Lykken,et al.  A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector , 1980 .

[14]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Training lie detectors to use nonverbal cues instead of global heuristics , 1993 .

[15]  P. Kalbfleisch,et al.  Deceit, distrust and the social milieu: Application of deception research in a troubled world , 1992 .

[16]  B. Depaulo,et al.  The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions , 1988 .

[17]  G. Goodman,et al.  Detecting Deception in Children's Testimony: Factfinders' Abilities to Reach the Truth in Open Court and Closed-Circuit Trials , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[18]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Lying in everyday life. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  K. Millar,et al.  The Effects of Cognitive Capacity and Suspicion on Truth Bias , 1997 .

[20]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

[21]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  To Catch a Liar: Challenges for Research in Lie Detection Training , 2003 .

[22]  Patricia Noller,et al.  Decoding deception: A look at the process , 1988 .

[23]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  Baseline Familiarity in Lie Detection. , 1995 .

[24]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  Case‐relevant vs. case‐irrelevant questioning in experimental lie detection , 1997 .

[25]  James B. Stiff,et al.  Truth Biases and Aroused Suspicion in Relational Deception , 1992 .

[26]  Paul Ekman,et al.  A Few Can Catch a Liar , 1999 .

[27]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception VII , 1994 .

[28]  Ernest S. Park,et al.  Group and individual accuracy in deception detection , 2002 .

[29]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  The Accuracy-Confidence Correlation in the Detection of Deception , 1997, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[30]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Cues to deception. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? , 1998, The American psychologist.

[32]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Humans as Lie Detectors , 1980 .

[33]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  Global cue usage in behavioral lie detection , 1995 .

[34]  P. Ekman,et al.  Smiles when lying. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  How people really detect lies , 2002 .

[37]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  Humans as lie detectors: Some more second thoughts , 1998 .

[38]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect” , 1999 .

[39]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. , 1983 .

[40]  G. Davies,et al.  The impact of television on the presentation and reception of children's testimony. , 1999, International journal of law and psychiatry.

[41]  P. Ekman,et al.  What the face reveals : basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system (FACS) , 2005 .

[42]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Perception of Performance in Group Brainstorming: The Illusion of Group Productivity , 1993 .

[43]  Wade C. Rowatt,et al.  Deception to Get a Date , 1998 .