Emotion recognition and deception detection

Abstract

People hold strong beliefs regarding the role of emotional cues in detecting deception. While research on the diagnostic value of such cues has been mixed, their influence on human veracity judgments should not be ignored. Here, we address the relationship between emotional information and veracity judgments. In Study 1, the role of emotion recognition in the process of detecting naturalistic lies was investigated. Decoders’ accuracy was compared based on differences in trait empathy and their ability to recognize microexpressions and subtle expressions. Accuracy was found to be unrelated to facial cue recognition but negatively related to empathy. In Study 2, we manipulated decoders’ emotion recognition ability and the type of lies they saw: experiential or affective. Decoders either received emotion recognition training, bogus training, or no training. In all scenarios, training was not found to impact on accuracy. Experiential lies were easier to detect than affective lies, but, affective emotional lies were easier to detect than affective unemotional lies. The findings suggest that emotion recognition has a complex relationship with veracity judgments.

Has empathy really become more important to leadership since the COVID-19 pandemic?

“…There is little research on what could be called the “dark side of empathy.” The present study is consistent with a handful of others demonstrating downsides to extreme empathy (e.g., Longmire & Harrison, 2018; K. Scott, 2017; Simon et al, 2022; Zloteanu et al, 2019), but this literature is sparse. What is the difference between leaders who demonstrate “too much” empathy because of empathic distress compared to empathic concern?…”

“…There is little research on the possible overuse of empathy, but a few studies are suggestive. For instance, leaders who are very high in empathy can more easily be deceived by manipulative emotional cues (Zloteanu et al, 2019). Additionally, leaders who are prone to empathic distress and internalizing the suffering of others are more likely to do so to a debilitating extent that reduces their attention to other leadership requirements and overall effectiveness (Simon et al, 2022).…”

Empathy enhancing antidotes for interpersonally toxic leaders.

“…In general, very little is known about the overuse of empathy, but research by Zloteanu, Bull, and Richardson (2019) suggested that one possible downside of very high empathy in leaders is the possible misinterpretation of deceptive emotional cues in others (but not genuine expressions of affect). Although warmth and empathy typically generate positive social relations with others, excessive empathy can sometimes cause others to feel pressured to react with similar enthusiasm (Hu, Zhang, Jiang, & Chen, 2019).…”

Interpersonal Consequences of Deceptive Expressions of Sadness

“…Accordingly, people may be motivated to feign emotional facial expressions to evoke a desired response from others ( DePaulo, 1992 ; Goffman, 1959 ). These attempts at manipulation are thought to be highly successful; research consistently finds that explicit lie detection accuracy is at or near chance ( Bond & DePaulo, 2006 ), and that observers perform similarly poorly in discriminating genuine versus deceptive expressions of emotion ( Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991 ; Hess & Kleck, 1994 ; Porter & ten Brinke, 2008 ; Stel & van Dijk, 2018 ; Zloteanu, 2019 ). Here, we bring together the social functional account of emotions ( Keltner & Gross, 1999 ; Van Kleef, 2009 ) and findings on behavioral cues to deceptive emotional expressions ( Ekman, 2003 ; Ekman et al, 1988 ; Frank et al, 1993 ; Hill & Craig, 2002 ; Hurley & Frank, 2011 ; Porter et al, 2012 ; Porter & ten Brinke, 2008 ; ten Brinke et al, 2012 ; ten Brinke & Porter, 2012 ) to suggest that—despite poor explicit accuracy—observers will experience different emotional and behavioral reactions to genuine versus deceptive displays of sadness, indicating sensitivity to subtle cues of deception on the face.…”