The Effects of Truth-Lie Base Rate on Interactive Deception Detection Accuracy

Abstract

Consistent with the Park and Levine's (PL) probability model of deception detection accuracy, previous research has shown that as the proportion of honest messages increases, there is a corresponding linear increase in correct truth–lie discrimination. Three experiments (N = 120, 205, and 243, respectively) varied the truth–lie base rate in an interactive deception detection task. Linear base‐rate effects were observed in all 3 experiments (average effect r#x02009;= .61) regardless of whether the judges were interactive participants or passive observers, previously acquainted or strangers, or previously exposed to truths or lies. The predictive power of the PL probability model appears robust and extends to interactive deception despite PL's logical incompatibility with interpersonal deception theory.

Rejoinder to Levine, Clare et al.'s Comparison of the Park-Levine Probability Model Versus Interpersonal Deception Theory: Application to Deception Detection

“…As no historically influential theory of deception has suggested that base rate might be important, the efforts of most deception researchers have been invested elsewhere. (Levine, Clare et al, , p. 351)…”

“…. people tend to rely on sender demeanor but it has only little diagnostic utility” (Levine, Clare, et al, , p. 353). This rather glib and unsubstantiated dismissal of the sender side of the equation ignores the authors' own prior claims and that of many other deception scholars that some senders are more believable than others (Bond & DePaulo, ; Levine, Shaw, & Shulman, ; Zuckerman et al, ).…”

“…In this rejoinder to LCGSP, I make six points: (a) the PL probability model (hereafter, PLM) is merely a description without an explanation; (b) IDT and its empirical support are seriously mischaracterized; (c) the LCGSP application of the PLM to interactive deception is based on a faulty understanding of what constitutes interactive deception; (d) the test pitting IDT against the PLM is invalid; (e) IDT offers a reasonable rival explanation for the pattern of results; and (f) empirical data support an alternative to the PLM by showing that deception judgments covary dynamically with the deceptiveness of the messages being produced. I then address some of the specific claims in the Levine, Clare, Green, Serota and Park () article that beg to be rebutted and explain why testing of deception detection requires both between‐group and within‐subject analyses such as is utilized in IDT tests.…”

Improving Experienced Auditors’ Detection of Deception in CEO Narratives

“…The ideal deception detection study not only would have high internal validity but also high external validity by using a fraud rate that matches the fraud rate in the field (Levine et al. []). Unfortunately, as is the case in many deception detection settings, we do not have precise estimates on the true rate of fraudulent financial reporting.…”

“…Auditors are informed of this fraud rate, which follows the vast majority of deception detection experiments in the literature (Levine et al. []). We use this particular fraud rate and multiple observations per auditor for two additional reasons.…”