Looks like a liar? Beliefs about native and non‐native speakers' deception

Abstract

Summary We examined whether observers' beliefs about deception were affected by a speaker's language proficiency. Laypersons (N = 105) and police officers (N = 75) indicated which nonverbal and verbal behaviors were predictive of native versus non‐native speakers' deception. In addition, they provided their beliefs about these speakers' interrogation experiences. Participants believed that native and non‐native speakers would exhibit the same cues to deception. However, they did predict that non‐native speakers would likely face several challenges during interrogations (e.g., longer interrogations and difficulties understanding the interrogator's questions). Police officers and laypersons also differed in their beliefs about cues to deception and interrogation experiences.

False impressions? The effect of language proficiency on cues, perceptions, and lie detection.

“…Observers reported that native and nonnative speakers exhibited similar cues to deception. Given that untrained observers’ and police officers’ stereotypes of deceivers are unaffected by language proficiency (e.g., Leach et al, 2019), this result was not entirely unexpected. Stereotypes of deception may be so salient that they are applied overly broadly and are impervious to proficiency.…”

“…Speakers’ cues could account for proficiency-related differences in lie detection. Both untrained observers and police officers hold similar stereotypes of deceivers, regardless of their language proficiencies (Leach et al, 2019). Similarly, in an explicit lie detection test, observers stated that they used the same cues to detect deception in native and nonnative speakers (Cheng & Broadhurst, 2005).…”

“…That is, observers reported the cues that they used to make their lie detection decisions, and nonverbal cues were independently verified with frame-by-frame analyses of interviewees’ accounts using coding software (i.e., Datavyu; Datavyu Team, 2014). We hypothesized that untrained observers would be relatively insensitive to differences between native and nonnative speakers (e.g., Leach et al, 2019). However, trained coders were expected to find that nonnative speakers exhibited more cues to deception than native speakers (e.g., Elliott & Leach, 2016).…”

The language of high‐stakes truths and lies: Linguistic analysis of true and deceptive statements made during sexual homicide interrogations

“…This may be due to the fact that lying is not a unique psychological process with correspondingly distinct behaviours, while liars and truth-tellers have the same general goal: to appear honest (DePaulo & Morris, 2004). It may also be due to a reliance on cues that have little diagnostic value (Hartwig & Bond, 2011;Hudson et al, 2020;Leach et al, 2020;Vrij, 2008). These cues have been further codified into tactics developed by practitioners such as the Reid Technique (Reid & Buckley, 2011), one of the most frequently taught in the United States (Vrij et al, 2006).…”

Cross cultural verbal cues to deception: truth and lies in first and second language forensic interview contexts

“…Bilinguals experience heightened cognitive load when being both deceptive and truthful in a second language ( Da Silva and Leach, 2013 ; Akehurst et al, 2018 ) and so verbal cues to veracity such as low information, reduced complexity, and fewer verifiable sources may be apparent but not necessarily associated with lying. However, laypersons and professionals (police officers) appear to believe liars communicating in both first and second languages are likely to exhibit the similar verbal veracity cues ( Leach et al, 2020 ). They also expect differences in interview length due, for example, to misunderstanding of questions and delayed response times ( Leach et al, 2020 ); this has been borne out by increased response durations when being deceptive in a second language versus first language ( McDonald et al, 2020 ).…”