Group and individual accuracy in deception detection

Park, Ernest S.; Levine, Timothy R.; Harms, Chad; Ferrara, Merissa

doi:10.1080/08824090209384837

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another potential limitation involves the group size. When comparing with other studies, Frank et al (2004) used a group size of six, and Park et al (2000) used group sizes ranging from three to six. In the current research, group sizes of three were used.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there has been little past research into this area, both of the studies that investigated the differences between individuals and groups in deception detection predicted that groups would outperform individuals in overall deception detection accuracy (Frank et al, 2004; Park et al, 2000). The authors of both articles reasoned that a group of people attempting to detect deception would process information more thoroughly and more systematically than would individuals, leading to better detection.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To the best of our knowledge, there have been only two studies that have done so. The first was conducted by Park et al (2000). They looked at group ability to detect deception and hypothesized that since “individuals often use false or inaccurate cues in their attempts to distinguish lies from truths, the probability of using more and different false cues should increase when decisions are made on the group level” (p. 100).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If groups are better than individuals at getting work done, might they also be better at detecting deception? Two past studies have investigated this issue, and both found that groups were no different than individuals in their overall detection abilities (Frank, Feeley, Paolantonio, & Servoss, 2004; Park, Levine, Harms, & Ferrara, 2000). Interestingly, Frank and colleagues found that while groups and individuals were equally as good at judging truth, groups were better than individuals at judging deception.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Exploration of Deception Detection: Are Groups More Effective Than Individuals?

McHaney

George

Gupta

2015

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deception is a pervasive problem often found in human behavior. This study investigates why past deception studies have found groups perform no better than individuals in detection using time-interaction-performance theory which suggests teams are not immediately effective. Only after establishing relational links is their potential reached. Established groups spend less time building relational links and instead focus on task-oriented activities more effectively. We sought to determine whether groups with prior history of interaction outperform individuals in deception detection. First, participants were randomly assigned to an individual or ad hoc group role. Later, additional preexisting work groups were recruited. Participants were instructed to identify deception in online video interviews. The experiment tested theoretical explanations regarding cohesion, interaction, and satisfaction as components of relational links and relationships to deception detection. Results indicated that groups which exhibited higher levels of relational links, that is, established groups, were more accurate in deception detection than ad hoc groups.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Exploration of Deception Detection: Are Groups More Effective Than Individuals?

McHaney

George

Gupta

2015

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although groups were no more accurate than individuals overall, they were marginally better (0.05 < P < 0.10) detecting lies. In the other experiment, groups were no more accurate than individuals (19), but this experiment sampled only two targets, leaving open the possibility of stimulus-specific confounds.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Group discussion improves lie detection

Klein

Epley

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups of individuals can sometimes make more accurate judgments than the average individual could make alone. We tested whether this group advantage extends to lie detection, an exceptionally challenging judgment with accuracy rates rarely exceeding chance. In four experiments, we find that groups are consistently more accurate than individuals in distinguishing truths from lies, an effect that comes primarily from an increased ability to correctly identify when a person is lying. These experiments demonstrate that the group advantage in lie detection comes through the process of group discussion, and is not a product of aggregating individual opinions (a "wisdom-of-crowds" effect) or of altering response biases (such as reducing the "truth bias"). Interventions to improve lie detection typically focus on improving individual judgment, a costly and generally ineffective endeavor. Our findings suggest a cheap and simple synergistic approach of enabling group discussion before rendering a judgment.lie detection | group decision-making | social cognition | wisdom of crowds | mind reading D etecting deception is difficult. Accuracy rates in experiments are only slightly greater than chance, even among trained professionals (1-4). This meager accuracy rate appears driven by a modest ability to detect truths rather than lies. In one metaanalysis, individuals accurately identified 61% of truths, but only 47% of lies (5). These results have led researchers to develop costly training programs targeting individual lie detectors to increase accuracy (6-10). We test a different strategy: asking individuals to detect lies as a group.There are three reasons that groups might detect deception better than individuals. First, because individuals have some skill in distinguishing truths from lies, statistically aggregating individual judgments could increase accuracy (a "wisdom-of-crowds" effect) (11,12). If individuals detect truths better than lies, aggregating individual judgments would increase truth detection more than lie detection.Second, individuals show a reliable "truth bias," assuming others are truthful unless given cause for suspicion (5, 13). If groups are less trusting than individuals (14-15), then they could detect lies more accurately because they guess someone is lying more often.Finally, group deliberation could increase accuracy by providing useful information that individuals lack otherwise (16-18). This predicts that group discussion alters how individuals evaluate a given statement to increase accuracy. Because individuals already possess some accuracy in detecting truths, unique improvement from group discussion would increase accuracy in detecting lies.We know of only two inconclusive experiments that test a group advantage in lie detection. In one experiment, participants first made an individual judgment before group discussion, making the independent influence of the subsequent group discussion unclear (17). Although groups were no more accurate than individuals overall, they were marginally better (...

show abstract

Structured groups make more accurate veracity judgements than individuals

Hamlin

Bolger

Vasilichi

et al. 2021

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups often make better judgements than individuals, and recent research suggests that this phenomenon extends to the deception detection domain. The present research investigated whether the influence of groups enhances the accuracy of judgements, and whether group size influences deception detection accuracy. Two‐hundred fifty participants evaluated written statements with a pre‐established detection accuracy rate of 60% in terms of veracity before viewing either the judgements and rationales of several other group members or a short summary of the written statement and revising or restating their own judgements accordingly. Participants' second responses were significantly more accurate than their first, suggesting a small positive effect of structured groups on deception detection accuracy. Group size did not have a significant effect on detection accuracy. The present work extends our understanding of the utility of group deception detection, suggesting that asynchronous, structured groups outperform individuals at detecting deception.

show abstract

Group and individual accuracy in deception detection

Cited by 13 publications

References 15 publications

An Exploration of Deception Detection: Are Groups More Effective Than Individuals?

An Exploration of Deception Detection: Are Groups More Effective Than Individuals?

Group discussion improves lie detection

Structured groups make more accurate veracity judgements than individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About