(In)accuracy at Detecting True and False Confessions and Denials: An Initial Test of a Projected Motive Model of Veracity Judgments

Abstract

Absent a perceived motive for deception, people will infer that a message source is honest. As a consequence, confessions should be believed more often than denials, true confessions will be correctly judged as honest, and false confessions will be misjudged. In the first experiment, participants judged true and false confessions and denials. As predicted, confessions were judged as honest more frequently than denials. Subsequent experiments replicated these results with an independent groups design and with a sample of professional investigators. Together, these three experiments document an important exception to the 50%+ accuracy conclusion, provide evidence consistent with a projected motive explanation of deception detection, and highlight the importance of the content-in-context in judgmental processes.

Applying Deception Detection to True and False Confessions: A Novel Approach to Conducting Experiments in Legal Psychology

“…Thus, confession evidence is extremely important to judicial decision-making. These findings can be corroborated by research indicating that confessions, regardless of whether or not they are true, are more readily believed than denials and judged as more honest (Levine, Kim, & Blair, 2010). Difficulty in assessing veracity (i.e.…”

Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening.

“…Low rates of deception detection from behavioural indicators arise, according to Levine, Kim and Blair (2010), for four reasons: a lack of indictors with predictive validity; naive beliefs in the predictive validity of certain indicators (e.g., avoidance of eye contact); ignoring information that may indicate deception (e.g., failing to spot inconsistencies in an account); and truth bias, that is, a predisposition to assume the truth of another person's account. In their 'Dangerous Decisions Theory', Porter, misinterpreted behavioural indicators biases people's judgements about deception, leading to irrational decision-making in the face of contradictory evidence.…”

An Evolutionary Perspective on Pain Communication

“…In fact, in real life, lies are usually discovered by information from the context, not by the nonverbal behavior of the liar (Masip & Herrero, 2015;Park, Levine, McCornack, Morrison, & Ferrara, 2002). Accordingly, introducing a familiar situation and diagnostic contextual information to the experimental paradigm can raise accuracy rates substantially (Blair, Levine, & Shaw, 2010;Bond, Howard, Hutchison, & Masip, 2013;Levine, 2015;Levine, Kim, & Blair, 2010;Reinhard, Sporer, Scharmach, & Marksteiner, 2011).…”