Examining Sender and Judge Variability in Honesty Assessments and Deception Detection Accuracy: Evidence for a Transparent Liar but No Evidence of Deception-General Ability

Levine, Timothy R.

doi:10.1080/08824096.2016.1186629

Cited by 22 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been suggested that personality traits underpin deception production abilities, and as such should in turn affect lie detection abilities (Semrad, Scott‐Parker, & Nagel, 2019). Previous research is contrasting, with lie production skills having been found to facilitate lie detection abilities (Wright, Berry, & Bird, 2012; Wright, Berry, Catmur, & Bird, 2015), and also to have no effect (DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1979; Levine, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: A lens model examination of consistency and deception

Hudson¹,

Vrij²,

Akehurst³

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Research has attempted to explain perceived cues to deception based upon self‐report of what participants believe are ‘good’ cues to deception, or self‐report of what cues participants say they base their veracity judgements on. However, it is not clear to what extent participants can accurately self‐report what influences their decision‐making. Using a within‐subjects design, 285 participants completed a questionnaire regarding their beliefs about deception before rating a selection of truthful and deceptive statements on a variety of cues. Expert coders also rated the statements for the same cues. Laypeople and expert coders do not conceptualise between‐subject consistency in the same way. A lens model showed that whilst perceptions of cues, such as consistency and amount of detail, influence veracity judgements, these perceptions (and overall veracity judgements) are mostly inaccurate. Fundamentally, there seems to be inconsistencies between how deception research examines consistency and how it is understood and used by laypeople.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: A lens model examination of consistency and deception

Hudson¹,

Vrij²,

Akehurst³

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there are benefits to demonstrating that specific interviewer techniques are, on average, more effective, applied settings are complex. Witnesses often display diverse behaviors that are not captured because it is rare for an individual to be accurately represented by aggregate research ( Chamorro-Premuzic, 2016 ; Levine, 2016 ).…”

Section: It Takes Two To Make An Interview Go Right: Round-robin Desimentioning

confidence: 99%

It Takes Two: The Round-Robin Methodology for Investigative Interviewing Research

Hudson¹,

Satchell

Adams-Quackenbush

2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigative interviews are complex, dyadic, and social interactions typically studied by evaluating interviewers’ questioning strategies. In field settings, interviewers naturally vary in their interviewing practice. Thus, it is important to conduct research reflective of idiosyncrasies in witnesses, interviewers, and the resulting unique pairings. This study explored sources of variation in an interview by using a “round-robin” design. Each session of the study involved five witnesses observing five separate events. Witnesses were then simultaneously, but independently interviewed by four different interviewers, or completed a self-administered written interview. This sequence was repeated until each witness had seen every event and had been interviewed by each interviewer. Over nine sessions (N = 45) this produced 225 total interviews. Individual interview performance (accuracy and level of detail) as well as experience (subjective ratings) were then analyzed in relation to the typical performance of the interviewer, the witness, the event, and the unique paring. We found that witnesses and interviewers could have an effect on statement quality; however, the unique interview experience variance had the greatest influence on interview performance. This study presents the round-robin methodology as a useful tool to study realistic variation in interviewer, witness, and dyad behavior. The preprint of this paper is available at psyarxiv.com/tv5gz/, and materials and data are available at osf.io/ef634/files/.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

It Takes Two: The Round-Robin Methodology for Investigative Interviewing Research

Hudson¹,

Satchell²,

Adams-Quackenbush³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the post print of the paper accepted in Frontiers in Psychology: Forensic and Legal Psychology on 22nd October 2018. Investigative interviews are complex, dyadic, social interactions typically studied by evaluating interviewers’ questioning strategies. In field settings, interviewers naturally vary in their interviewing practice. Thus, it is important to conduct research reflective of idiosyncrasies in witnesses, interviewers, and the resulting unique pairings. This study explored sources of variation in an interview by using a ‘round-robin’ design. Each session of the study involved five witnesses observing five separate events. Witnesses were then simultaneously, but independently interviewed by four different interviewers, or completed a self-administered written interview. This sequence was repeated until each witness had seen every event and had been interviewed by each interviewer. Over nine sessions (N = 45) this produced 225 total interviews. Individual interview performance (accuracy and level of detail) as well as experience (subjective ratings) were then analysed in relation to the typical performance of the interviewer, the witness, the event, and the unique paring. We found that witnesses and interviewers could have an effect on statement quality, however the unique interview experience variance had the greatest influence on interview performance. This study presents the round-robin methodology as a useful tool to study realistic variation in interviewer, witness, and dyad behaviour. The preprint of this paper is available at psyarxiv.com/tv5gz/, and materials and data are available at osf.io/ef634/files/.

show abstract

Examining Sender and Judge Variability in Honesty Assessments and Deception Detection Accuracy: Evidence for a Transparent Liar but No Evidence of Deception-General Ability

Cited by 22 publications

References 14 publications

Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: A lens model examination of consistency and deception

Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: A lens model examination of consistency and deception

It Takes Two: The Round-Robin Methodology for Investigative Interviewing Research

It Takes Two: The Round-Robin Methodology for Investigative Interviewing Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About