Observers' accuracy in detecting deception in non‐native speakers versus native speakers: A systematic review

Abstract

As immigration and homeland security become of greater concern both at a global and national level, it is imperative to review existing research on observers' ability to accurately detect deception in non-native speakers. Objectives of this systematic review were to summarise the evidence on adult observers' ability to accurately detect deception in non-native speakers compared to native speakers; identify response biases in observers' judgements when judging native versus non-native speakers' statements; and explore whether differences in observers' deception detection accuracy varies across targets' proficiency levels. Two reviewers independently searched five databases and screened for all quantitative studies that met pre-selected search criteria.Out of 1885 records identified through database searching, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Discriminability for non-native speakers was above chance in four samples. Most studies found support for a lie bias when judging non-native speakers and a truth bias when judging native speakers. In addition to further research, these results highlight the need for better reporting of stimuli and observer samples as well as a standardised measure of individuals' proficiency level.

Cross cultural verbal cues to deception: truth and lies in first and second language forensic interview contexts

“…These results suggest that some judges may tend to use more extreme ratings when judging British speakers, which may reflect the cultural background of our raters who were all monolingual British. However, these findings are braodly in line with research suggesting an a more pronounced observer lie bias when judging non-native speakers (Da Silva and Leach, 2013;Evans and Michael, 2014;Wylie et al, 2022), although this may not be the case were judges and coders are bilingual and culturally matched to the interviewee, since the assessments of plausibility are likely to vary depending on the knowledge and expertise of those making a judgment. This would speak to questions concerning whether cross cultural interviews should be conducted in a second language or via an interpreter, perhaps.…”

“…Despite expectations of similar verbal behaviors, a lie bias has begun to emerge when judging non-native (second language) speakers. In contrast, a truth bias is more evident when judging native (first language) speakers (Da Silva and Leach, 2013;Evans and Michael, 2014;Wylie et al, 2022). Similarly, veracity judgment accuracy is better when judging first vs. second language speakers (Da Silva and Leach, 2013;Taylor et al, 2014;Leach et al, 2017;Akehurst et al, 2018), although not always.…”

“…Third, we examined cultural differences and similarities in the occurrence of verbal cues and plausibility across cultures as a function of veracity. While we recognize the inconsistencies of prior research in this area, we expected that judgments of plausibility would be particularly impacted for the those interviewed in their second language since empirical evidence has begun to emerge of lie bias for second language speakers (see Wylie et al, 2022).…”

Cultural differences in the efficacy of unexpected questions, sketching, and timeline methods in eliciting cues to deception

“…However, it has several disadvantages. First, although all participants achieved or self-reported high levels of English, speaking in a second language does affect deception cues (Akehurst et al, 2018 ; Wylie et al, 2022 ). Furthermore, non-native speakers use some of the language features of interest differently than native speakers would [e.g., non-native speakers may use “we” more inclusively than native speakers; Dafouz et al ( 2007 )].…”

“…Observers of non-native speakers tend to show a lie bias (a tendency to report that the person is lying even when they are telling the truth), which is not present when observing native speakers. This may be due to stereotypes surrounding non-native accents (Wylie et al, 2022 ). Therefore, recruiting a mix of native and non-native speakers would have added a confounding variable (see Discussion).…”