Deceptively simple … The “deception-general” ability and the need to put the liar under the spotlight

Abstract

This Focused Review expands upon our original paper (You can't kid a kidder": Interaction between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6:87). In that paper we introduced a new socially interactive, laboratory-based task, the Deceptive Interaction Task (DeceIT), and used it to measure individuals' ability to lie, their ability to detect the lies of others, and potential individual difference measures contributing to these abilities. We showed that the two skills were correlated; better liars made better lie detectors (a “deception general” ability) and this ability seemed to be independent of cognitive (IQ) and emotional (EQ) intelligence. Here, following the Focused Review format, we outline the method and results of the original paper and comment more on the value of lab-based experimental studies of deception, which have attracted criticism in recent years. While acknowledging that experimental paradigms may fail to recreate the full complexity and potential seriousness of real-world deceptive behavior, we suggest that lab-based deception paradigms can offer valuable insight into ecologically-valid deceptive behavior. The use of the DeceIT procedure enabled deception to be studied in an interactive setting, with motivated participants, and importantly allowed the study of both the liar and the lie detector within the same deceptive interaction. It is our thesis that by addressing deception more holistically—by bringing the liar into the “spotlight” which is typically trained exclusively on the lie detector—we may further enhance our understanding of deception.

Examining Sender and Judge Variability in Honesty Assessments and Deception Detection Accuracy: Evidence for a Transparent Liar but No Evidence of Deception-General Ability

“…The final noteworthy finding was that the current experiment failed to replicate the correlation between ability and transparency reported by Wright et al (2012Wright et al ( , 2013 in support of the deception-general ability hypothesis. From the perspective of the current author, this failure to replicate is not surprising since, as argued previously, the deception-general ability claim is implausible for several good reasons.…”

“…Consequently, good (defined as nontransparent) liars may be good (high-ability) lie detectors. They propose a deception-general ability and report a correlation of r = −.35 between judge accuracy (ability) and transparency (Wright et al, 2012(Wright et al, , 2013; both articles report the same data from the same N = 51 participants). In a replication (N = 75), the correlation between sender transparency and judge ability was r = −.47 (Wright, Berry, Catmur, & Bird, 2015).…”

Electric stimulation of the right temporo-parietal junction induces a task-specific effect in deceptive behaviors

“…The opinion task in the present study was based on the false-opinion paradigm in previous studies (Mehrabian, 1971;Sowden et al, 2015;Wright et al, 2012Wright et al, , 2013. First, the subject gave his/her opinion on a highly-controversial topic in Japan (e.g.…”

“…In the present study, we evaluated deceptive performances by actors (senders) based on accuracy of the veracity judgment task by observers (receivers). This sender-receiver paradigm (Wright et al, 2013) makes a contrast with previous tDCS studies in which deceptive performances were evaluated by behavioral measures of senders, such as reaction times in telling lies (Fecteau et al, 2012;Karim et al, 2010;Mameli et al, 2010;Priori et al, 2008). Our use of the sender-receiver paradigm was related to the fact that we presently stimulated rTPJ (not prefrontal cortex as in the previous studies), a brain region playing a critical role in social functions.…”

The Damaging Effects of Perceived Crocodile Tears for a Crier’s Image

“…Police officers, with an accuracy rate of 50%, did not outperform laypeople. Moreover, it has been shown that lie ability and lie production are positively related, indicating that, in particular, those who easily lie, are better at detecting deceitful others (Wright et al, 2013). Dark triad personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) have also been shown to predict the ability to detect deceitfulness, although associations may be sex-specific.…”