Observers' Language Proficiencies and the Detection of Non‐native Speakers' Deception

Abstract

We examined whether observers' language proficiencies affected their abilities to detect native and non-native speakers' deception. Native and non-native English speakers were videotaped as they either lied or told the truth about having cheated on a test. A total of 284 laypersons-who were either native or non-native English speakers themselves-viewed these videos and indicated whether they believed that the speakers were being truthful or deceptive. Observers were more accurate when judging native speakers than when judging non-native speakers, suggesting that perceptual fluency aided deception detection. Although there was no effect of observers' language proficiencies on discrimination, their belief that interviewees were telling the truth increased with proficiency. On the whole, these findings suggest that non-native speakers may be at greater risk of being incorrectly classified in forensic contexts.

Investigating deception in second language speakers: Interviewee and assessor perspectives

“…(), Leach et al . (), and Leach and Da Silva () who found more of a truth bias for native speakers than for non‐native speakers. The only, seemingly, contradictory finding comes from Bond and Atoum () who found a truth bias towards non‐natives.…”

“…Speaking in a second language can result in increased communication apprehension, nervousness, anxiety, and cognitive strain (Gregersen, ). The verbal and non‐verbal behaviours associated with these processes are often linked with deception and may be the reason that non‐native speakers are perceived as less credible than native speakers (Castillo, Tyson, & Mallard., ; Da Silva & Leach, ; Elliott & Leach, ; Evans, Pimentel, Pena, & Michael, ; Leach, Snellings, & Gazaille, ; Lev‐Ari & Keysar, ). But how do interviewees, speaking in their non‐native language, perceive their own experience?…”

“…On the other hand, the majority of researchers have found that evaluators exhibit, at best, less of a truth bias and, at worst, a lie bias towards non‐native speakers (e.g., Castillo et al ., ; Da Silva & Leach, ; Elliott & Leach, ; Evans & Michael, ; Evans et al ., ; Leach et al ., ; Lev‐Ari & Keysar, ). A large body of research spanning the last 50 years shows that, when compared to native language speakers, foreign‐accented speakers tend to be evaluated more negatively on various traits, including those related to credibility (see Dragojevic, ; Garrett, ; Giles & Rakić, ; Giles & Watson, ).…”

Looks like a liar? Beliefs about native and non‐native speakers' deception

“…In a new phase in the field, researchers have begun to examine the factors unpinning these differences in decision‐making. For example, speakers' accents (Akehurst et al, ), the demands of the deception task (Evans et al, ), and observers' familiarity with non‐native speech (e.g., Evans & Michael, ; Leach, Snellings, & Gazaille, ) have been tested as moderators of proficiency effects. The role of cognitive load has also received significant empirical attention (e.g., Evans et al, ).…”

Speech cues to deception in bilinguals

“…These studies have contrasted bilinguals' deception performance in a native versus second language with mixed findings: some observed that deception was more successfully detected in a first than a second language (Akehurst, Arnhold, Figueiredo, Turtle, & Leach, 2018;Leach, Snellings, & Gazaille, 2017), some found the opposite (Evans, Michael, Meissner, & Brandom, 2013), and some found no difference between the two languages (Caldwell- Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, 2009;Cheng & Broadhurst, 2005;Duñabeitia & Costa, 2015;Evans & Michael, 2014). However, language background may influence bilinguals' deception performance across both languages (Elliott & Leach, 2016;Evans, Pimentel, Pena, & Michael, 2017), and yet comparisons between monolingual and bilingual speakers on deception tasks are lacking.…”