Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias.

Abstract

The authors report a meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception, confining attention to occasions when people judge strangers' veracity in real-time with no special aids. The authors have developed a statistical technique to correct nominal individual differences for differences introduced by random measurement error. Although researchers have suggested that people differ in the ability to detect lies, psychometric analyses of 247 samples reveal that these ability differences are minute. In terms of the percentage of lies detected, measurement-corrected standard deviations in judge ability are less than 1%. In accuracy, judges range no more widely than would be expected by chance, and the best judges are no more accurate than a stochastic mechanism would produce. When judging deception, people differ less in ability than in the inclination to regard others' statements as truthful. People also differ from one another as lie- and truth-tellers. They vary in the detectability of their lies. Moreover, some people are more credible than others whether lying or truth-telling. Results reveal that the outcome of a deception judgment depends more on the liar's credibility than any other individual difference.

Effects of the duration of expressions on the recognition of microexpressions

“…Many aspects of microexpressions need to be elucidated in the future including the lower limit, individual differences in expression and recognition of microexpressions (Bond and DePaulo, 2008;O′Sullivan et al, 2009;Wang and Fu, 2009;Warren et al, 2009), effective methods of training and the retention of training effects (Hurley, 2010;Matsumoto and Hwang, 2011), and automatic brief facial expression analysis systems (Polikovsky et al, 2010;Wu et al, 2010). As for individual differences, in groups closely related to deception detection, such as crime interrogators, national security personnel, visa interviewers, sales personnel, negotiators, and mental health professionals, the expression and recognition of microexpressions might not be the same as for other people.…”

Please be Honest and Provide Evidence: Deterrents of Deception in an Online Insurance Fraud Context

“…This is a low percentage given that 50% accuracy can be expected just by flipping a coin. Other meta‐analyses have shown that individual differences in the ability to detect deceit are minute and that the poor performance occurs across various groups of observers (Aamodt & Custer, 2006; Bond & DePaulo, 2008). …”

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

“…Verbal deception detection cues have also, on the whole, not been applicable to true and false confessions to the same extent as to true and false exculpatory statements. This was indicated in Appleby et al's (2013) and Garrett's (2010) content analyses of false confessions, which found extensive visual and auditory details in false confessions, although paucity of such detail is a cue to deception in false exculpatory statements (Bond & DePaulo, 2008;Vrij, 2008a). Moreover, Willén & Strömwall (2012) found that two empirically-tested measures of verbal cues to deception (i.e.…”

“…Unfortunately, considerable research across a variety of individuals -law enforcement officers, judges, jury-members, college students -suggests that participants are generally poor at detecting deception, doing so around chance levels, both in social contexts and criminal interrogations (Akehurst, Köhnken, Vrij, Bull, 1997;Bond & DePaulo, 2006;Bond & DePaulo, 2008;DePaulo, Lassiter, & Stone, 1982;Ekman & O'Sullivan, 1991;Memon, Vrij, & Bull, 2003;ten Brinke & Porter, 2013;Vrij, 2000). Vrij (2000) concluded that accuracy rates of professional investigators range from 45% to 60%, averaging around 54% accuracy.…”