Search:
Computing and Library Services - delivering an inspiring information environment

Commentary: Can ordinary people detect deception after all?

Street, Chris N. H. and Vadillo, Miguel A. (2017) Commentary: Can ordinary people detect deception after all? Frontiers in Cognitive Science.

[img]
Preview
PDF - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (163kB) | Preview

Abstract

No one likes to call someone a liar. But the authors of the tipping point account (ten Brinke, Vohs, & Carney, 2016) claim that it is evolutionary prudent to spot lies that can harm us in order to determine who to trust. As such, they propose the reputational costs of confronting a liar might be overcome by detecting lies unconsciously. When confronted with information that creates a threat response, the unconscious can use the threat response to detect deceptive cues and to unconsciously infer deception, all the while keeping this information out of the conscious mind. The account suggests this is beneficial because conscious awareness of the deception “could impel the perceiver to confront the liar” (p. 580).
The account is controversial insofar as it claims that people can detect deception, in contrast to past work showing otherwise (47% detection rate of lies, and 61% of truths, resulting from bias to judge statements as true: Bond & DePaulo, 2006), and also makes novel claims about an unconscious ability. Although it is welcoming to see new theoretical approaches to lie detection, the account (a) makes claims that do not match the data and conclusions presented in the studies cited to build its case, (b) offers no testable definition of unconscious processes, and (c) contains internal contradictions.

▼ Jump to Download Statistics
Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: deception; detecting deception; unconscious; lie detection; tipping point
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Schools: School of Human and Health Sciences
School of Human and Health Sciences > Centre for Applied Psychological Research
School of Human and Health Sciences > International Research Centre for Investigative Psychology
Related URLs:
References:

Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., & Ansfield, M. E. (2002). The development of deception detection skill: A longitudinal study of same-sex friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 536-545. doi: 10.1177/0146167202287010.
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2.
Bond, C. F., Levine, T. R., & Hartwig, M. (2015). New findings in nonverbal lie detection. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 37-58). Chichester: Wiley.
Ein-Dor, T., & Perry, A. (2013). Full house of fears: Evidence that people high in attachment anxiety are more accurate in detecting deceit. Journal of Personality, 82, 83-92. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12035.
Franz, V. H., & von Luxburg, U. (2015). No evidence for unconscious lie detection: A significant difference does not imply accurate classification. Psychological Science, 26, 1646-1648. doi: 10.1177/0956797615597333.
Grèzes, J., Berthoz, S., & Passingham, R. E. (2006). Amygdala activation when one is the target of deceit: Did he lie to you or to someone else? NeuroImage, 30, 601-608. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.09.038.
Grèzes, J., Frith, C., & Passingham, R. E. (2004). Brain mechanisms for inferring deceit in the actions of others. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 5500-5505. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.0219-04.2004.
Hübschle, A. (2014). Of bogus hunters, queenpins and mules: The varied roles of women in transnational organized crime in Southern Africa. Trends in Organized Crime, 17, 31-51. doi: 10.1007/s12117-013-9202-8.
Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378-392. doi: 10.1177/0261927X14535916.
Levine, T., & Bond, C. F. (2014). Direct and indirect measures of lie detection tell the same story: A reply to ten Brinke, Stimson, and Carney (2014). Psychological Science, 25, 1960-1961. doi: 10.1177/0956797614536740.
Lissek, S., Peters, S., Fuchs, N., Witthaus, H., Nicolas, V., Tegenthoff, M., Juckel, G., & Brüne, M. (2008). Cooperation and deception recruit different subsets of the theory-of-mind network. PLoS One, 3: e2023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002023.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480. doi: 10.1023/A:1020278620751.
Moi, W. Y., & Shanks, D. R. (2015). Can lies be detected unconsciously? Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1221). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01221.
Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 1-19. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12003214.

O’Sullivan, M. (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-cried-wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1316-1327. doi: 10.1177/0146167203254610.
O’Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 203-215.
Reinhard, M. A., Greifeneder, R., & Scharmach, M. (2013). Unconscious processes improve lie detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 721-739. doi: 10.1037/a0034352.
Street, C. N. H. (2015). ALIED: Humans as adaptive lie detectors. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 335-343. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.06.002.
Street, C. N. H., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). The focal account: Indirect lie detection need not access unconscious, implicit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 342-344. doi: 10.1037/xap0000058.
Street, C. N. H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2016). Can the unconscious boost lie-detection accuracy? 25, 246-250. doi: 10.1177/0963721416656348.
Takaoka, A., Maeda, T., Hori, Y., & Fujita, K. (2015). Do dogs follow behavioral cues from an unreliable human? Animal Cognition, 18, 475-483. doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0816-2.
ten Brinke, L., Stimson, D., & Carney, D. R. (2014). Some evidence for unconscious lie detection. Psychological Science, 25(5), 1098-1105. doi: 10.1177/0956797614524421.
ten Brinke, L., Vohs, K. D., & Carney, D. R. (2016). Can ordinary people detect deception after all? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 579-588. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.012.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2004). United nations convention against transnational organized crime and the protocols thereto. New York: United Nations.
van ‘t Veer, A. E., & Gallucci, M., Stel, M., & van Beest, I. (2015). Unconscious deception detection measured by finger skin temperature and indirect veracity judgments – results of a registered report. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:672. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00672.
Wheeler, B. C. (2010). Production and perception of situationally variable alarm calls in wild tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus paella nigritus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 64, 989-1000. doi: 10.1007/s00265-010-0914-3.
Wright, R., Chakraborty, S., Basoglu, A., & Marett, K. (2010). Where did they go right? Understanding the deception in phishing communications. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19, 391-416. doi: 10.1007/s10726-009-9167-9.

Depositing User: Chris Street
Date Deposited: 11 Oct 2017 14:38
Last Modified: 16 Oct 2017 17:31
URI: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/33522

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Repository Staff Only: item control page

View Item View Item

University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH Copyright and Disclaimer All rights reserved ©