Can the Unconscious Boost Lie-Detection Accuracy?

Abstract

Recently, a variety of methods have been used to show that unconscious processes can boost lie-detection accuracy. This article considers the latest developments in the context of research into unconscious cognition. Unconscious cognition has been under attack in recent years because the findings do not replicate, and when they do show reliably improved performance, they fail to exclude the possibility that conscious processing is at work. Here we show that work into unconscious lie detection suffers from the same weaknesses. Future research would benefit from taking a stronger theoretical stance and explicitly attempting to exclude conscious-processing accounts.

The Limits of Conscious Deception Detection: When Reliance on False Deception Cues Contributes to Inaccurate Judgments

“…Recent findings suggest that conscious processes can hinder the ability to detect deception (e.g., Reinhard et al, 2013a;Street and Vadillo, 2016). Judging whether a person is truthful or deceptive can be regarded as a complex decision.…”

“…"; e.g., DePaulo et al, 1997;Ten Brinke et al, 2014). The claims that indirect measures outperform direct measures, however, are sometimes based on incomparable metrics (Levine and Bond, 2014;Franz and von Luxburg, 2015;Street and Vadillo, 2016;Levine, 2019b). Metaanalysis showed that most indirect measures do not outperform direct measures (Bond et al, 2014).…”

When do we see that others misrepresent how they feel? detecting deception from emotional faces with direct and indirect measures

“…The 20 indirect measures that did not outperform direct measures include rating the pleasantness, expressiveness, and relaxation of the face, nervousness and friendliness. One explanation for why some indirect measures, but not others, outperform direct measures is that only indirect measures that focus observers' attention on deception cues that are useful can increase accuracy (Street & Richardson, 2015;Street & Vadillo, 2016). …”

Commentary: Can Ordinary People Detect Deception after All?

“…However, Anderson and colleagues demonstrated that their result was a methodological effect attributable to the fact that the scale used to collect explicit ratings was less sensitive than the one used for indirect ratings, an effect which has been found in a meta-analysis (Bond and DePaulo, 2006 ). In fact, indirect lie detection often performs worse than direct lie detection (Levine and Bond, 2014 ; Bond et al, 2015 ), and can be explained by entirely conscious processes (Street and Richardson, 2015 ; Street and Vadillo, 2016 ).…”

“…A useful contribution of the tipping point theory, then, is to make explicit a number of predictions that could test for the presence of accusatory reluctance (see Box 1 ). But this exploration can take place without reference to an undefined hidden process (Street and Vadillo, 2016 ).…”