ACCURACY OF JUDGMENTS OF DECEPTION WHEN AN INTERVIEW IS WATCHED, HEARD, AND READ¹

Self‐Reported Beliefs About Verbal Cues Correlate with Deception‐Detection Performance

“…Nonetheless, we will shortly discuss the main results. Contrary to our hypothesis, police officers and undergraduates overall performed no better when they were offered transcripts instead of videos, which contrasts earlier research (Burgoon et al, 2008;Davis, Markus, & Walters, 2006;Leach et al, 2016;Maier & Thurber, 1968;Mann et al, 2008). One possible explanation may be that offering transcripts also removes access to diagnostic vocal signals (e.g., pitch and speech latency).…”

Towards an empirical model of malingering and deception

“…Maier and Thurber (1968) tested subjects' ability to detect deception in a roleplaying situation under three experimental conditions: actually watching an interview, listening to an audio tape, and reading a typed transcription. The results indicated increased accuracy in detecting deception by those listening to the audio tape (77.0 percent accuracy) or reading the transcripts (77.3 percent) in contrast to those who actually observed the interview (58.3 percent).…”

Lying Behavior and Evaluation of Lies

“…N. R. F. Maier ( 1966) found that subjects were able to discriminate between individuals assigned "honest" roles and those given "lying"-role instructions in an interview s i c~a t i o n .~ In a follow-up study, it was found that some individuals were significantly more accurate than others in discriminating the "honest" from the "lying" condition, but the reasons given for the judgments were very similar for the accurate and inaccurate judges (Maier & Janzen, 1967). In a third study involving the same "honest" and "lying" roleplaying situations, subjects were significantly less accurate in identifying the "lying" condition when they were present, i.e., when they heard and watched the interview, than when they only listened to a tape recording of the interview or when they simply read a transcript of the interview (Maier & Thurber, 1968).A study by Ekman and Friesen (1974) suggested that facial and body movement cues are related to the deception of a liar. Subjects were less accurate in identifying a "liar" when a videotape of the face was shown than when a videotape focusing on the body was shown.…”