Behavioral Adaptation, Confidence, and Heuristic-Based Explanations of the Probing Effect

Abstract

Researchers have found that asking probing questions of message sources does not enhance deception detection accuracy. Probing does, however, increase recipient and observer perceptions of source honesty, a finding we label the probing effect. This project examined 3 potential explanations for the probing effect: behavioral adaptation, confidence bias, and a probing heuristic. In Study 1, respondents (N = 337) viewed videotaped interviews in which probes were present or not present, and in which message source behaviors were controlled. Inconsistent with the behavioral adaptation explanation, respondents perceived probed sources as more honest than nonprobed sources, despite the fact that source behaviors were constant across conditions. The data also were inconsistent with the confidence bias explanation. Studies 2 and 3 investigated the probing heuristic explanation. The data from Study 2 (N = 136) were ambiguous, but the results of third study (N = 143) were consistent with the heuristic processing explanation of the probing effect. C ommon sense suggests that interrogative probing should be an effective strategy for detecting deception. By asking message sources probing questions, message recipients gain additional information, and consequently should render more accurate judgments regarding the veracity of sources' messages. Police and military interrogations, cross examinations in courtrooms, and interviews by investigative reporters are just a few examples of how probing is used as a strategy for uncovering truths and lies.Timothy R. Levine (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1992), is an associate professor in the

Increasing Deception Detection Accuracy with Strategic Questioning

“…Although the current research investigated the impact of questioning on deception detection, the current results are not informative about the probing effect (Levine & McCornack, 2001). The probing effect refers to the finding that questioned senders are more likely to be believed than senders who are not questioned regardless of veracity.…”

Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model

“…Although this is an empirical question, good reasons exist to believe that the model would likely hold in interactive settings, and that the effects for base-rate would be even stronger. Research on interactive deception and the effects of questioning find little effects on accuracy but a general increase in truth-bias (e.g., Buller et al, 1991;Burgoon, Buller, & Floyd, 2001;Levine & McCornack, 2001). Thus, the effects for base-rate would likely be more pronounced if this study were replicated with an interactive design.…”

Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve

“…Levine et al (1999) refer to several heuristics which are thought to influence veracity judgments, including the probing heuristic and the representativeness heuristic. The probing heuristic (Levine & McCornack, 2001) refers to judges' tendency to believe a source more after the source has been probed. [Receivers have a strong belief in the efficacy of probing as a lie detection strategy.…”

“…[Receivers have a strong belief in the efficacy of probing as a lie detection strategy. In case probing does not result in clear signs of deceit, and it often will not (Levine & McCornack, 2001), the source is more likely to be believed.] The representativeness heuristic (Stiff et al, 1989) refers to the tendency to evaluate a particular reaction as an example of a broader category.…”