Mechanisms underlying response bias in deception detection

Abstract

The present research aims to explore the mechanisms underlying response bias in detection of deception. In addition to examining the predictive value of generalized communicative suspicion (GCS), age, and professional experience, the present approach also investigates the role of error weighting by testing the hypothesis that a greater concern about Misses is associated with a lie bias. In Study 1, we analyzed samples of (a) students, (b) police trainees, and (c) police officers. Results revealed an asymmetrical error weighting as the strongest predictor of response bias. Supporting our hypothesis, participants who were more concerned about False Alarms were particularly truth biased, whereas a lie bias was observed among those who were more concerned about Misses. In Study 2, we manipulated the error weighting in order to test its causal relation to response bias. Results again show the predictive value of asymmetrical error weighting for response bias in deception detection, and indicate that the effects of the manipulation are moderated by individuals' habitual error weighting.

Increasing skepticism toward potential liars: effects of existential threat on veracity judgments and the moderating role of honesty norm activation

“…By applying signal detection theory ( Green and Swets, 1966 ), we assumed motivational changes in judgmental error weighing to be responsible for effects on judgmental biases ( Hurst and Oswald, 2012 ). The truth bias is based on the normally high aversion toward the error of judging an actual message as a lie (error 1).…”

“…By contrast, in daily conversations, falsely blaming a friend of telling a lie might lead to an end of the friendship. Thus, judgmental biases can plausibly be explained by unequal importance to the two types of error (see also Hurst and Oswald, 2012 ). Based on the idea that possible costs of making a judgmental error vary as a function of situational variables, Hurst and Oswald (2012) experimentally manipulated error weighting.…”

“…Thus, judgmental biases can plausibly be explained by unequal importance to the two types of error (see also Hurst and Oswald, 2012 ). Based on the idea that possible costs of making a judgmental error vary as a function of situational variables, Hurst and Oswald (2012) experimentally manipulated error weighting. Results provided initial evidence for the idea that an increased salience of the consequences of a false alarm (vs. a miss) results in a truth bias.…”

“…According to signal detection theory, the truth bias is based on the normally high aversion toward the error of judging an actual message as a lie (false alarm = error 1). Reducing the weight of this type of error should therefore lead to a reduced truth bias ( Hurst and Oswald, 2012 ). Additionally, increasing the motivation to avoid the error of judging an actual lie as true (miss = error 2) should also lead to a reduced truth bias, even possibly resulting in a lie bias (e.g., in the case of police officers).…”

Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers

“…In general, experienced officers differ from novice officers. For instance, relative to novice officers, experienced officers have stronger beliefs about stereotypical deception cues, make their deception judgments with more confidence, and are dispositionally more predisposed toward questioning the veracity of the messages produced by others (Masip and Garrido, 2001 ; Masip et al, 2005 , 2016a ; Hurst and Oswald, 2012 ). Therefore, the question remains whether experienced and novice officers can benefit to the same extent from Masip et al's ( 2016b ) interview procedure and instruction.…”