Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side of Trust

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

“…Farquhar, 2005). Research shows that people are more truth-biased when interacting face-to-face (Buller et al, 1991), when they know the person they are talking to (McCornack & Parks, 1986), and they are not forewarned of impending deception (e.g., Levine et al, 2000;McCornack & Levine, 1990). Each of these conditions is often met in everyday situations, but is seldom the case in deception detection experiments.…”

“…Theoretically, the effect of base-rate on accuracy would become stronger when communication is face-to-face, when interaction is with a close relational partner, and when people are not primed to be suspicious or prompted to expect deception (Buller et al, 1991;McCornack & Levine, 1990;McCornack & Parks, 1986). Alternatively, previous research would suggest weaker results when judges receive detection training, when they have occupational experience in lie detection, or when they are incarcerated as these conditions lower truth-bias, but do not substantially increase overall accuracy (Bond, Malloy, Arias, Nunn, & Thompson, 2005;Frank & Feeley, 2003;Levine, Feeley, McCornack, Harms, & Hughes, 2005;Meissner & Kassin, 2002).…”

“…Explanations for truth-bias include the cognitive processes involved in mentally representing true and false information (Gilbert, 1991) and fundamental principles in how language is understood (Grice, 1989;McCornack, 1992). Truth-bias is especially pronounced when people interact face-to-face (Buller, Strzyzewski, & Hunsaker, 1991), when people know the message source (McCornack & Parks, 1986), and in studies where the participants are unaware that their task is to detect lies (e.g., Levine et al, 2000;McCornack & Levine, 1990). Levine et al (1999) observed that the research documenting the accuracy-is-slightlyabove-50% conclusion typically share two important features.…”

Group Performance in Military Scenarios Under Deceptive Conditions

“…This means that when there is communication, the receiver is attempting to comprehend what the sender is saying and there is a basic assumption made that the message is comprehensive and truthful (Grice, 1989). The problem with this is that research has shown that such a mindset can lead to truth bias, which is a predisposition to assume that all others' communication is truthful or trustworthy (McCornack & Parks, 1986;Levine & McCornack, 1992).…”

“…As mentioned in the first chapter, truth bias is a predisposition to assume that all others' communication is truthful or trustworthy (McCornack & Parks, 1986;Levine & McCornack, 1992). Receivers will generally believe others and accept message content at face value (DePaulo et al, 1985).…”