The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions

DePaulo, Bella M.; Kirkendol, Susan E.; Tang, John C.; O’Brien, T. P.

doi:10.1007/bf00987487

Cited by 113 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, severely deceptive business partners structured their argumentation excessively, perhaps to remove doubt and avoid detection. This finding is in line with DePaulo et al's [26] assertion that deceivers appear overly rehearsed, an impairment that seems exacerbated in highly motivated liars [23]. Our examination also highlights the importance of text structure as a macro-level speech act that allows for a more comprehensive understanding of cues of deception in CMC and supplements information system design for deception detection.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Contrary to the relationship we predicted, detailing (e.g., the use of adjectives such as "sublime," "brilliant") appeared positively related to deception severity. DePaulo et al [23] suggest that descriptions of imagined events should contain fewer perceptual details, but a more recent meta-analysis revealed that the negative association between details and deception may be limited to handwritten accounts [38]. As people gain experience with constructing an extended, digital self or selves [7], they might also become more adept at burying their deception in rich, superfluous detail.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ekman [29] and DePaulo et al [23] emphasize the need to attend to such macro aspects in communication when assessing deception. For example, Ekman [29] notes that deceivers' fears of being caught, while aiming to be as convincing as possible, likely are manifest in the form of overrehearsed arguments.…”

Section: Macro-level Deception Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Untangling a Web of Lies: Exploring Automated Detection of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication

Ludwig

Laer

Ruyter

et al. 2016

Journal of Management Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safeguarding organizations against opportunism and severe deception in computer-mediated communication (CMC) presents a major challenge to chief information officers and information technology managers. New insights into linguistic cues of deception derive from the speech acts innate to CMC. Applying automated text analysis to archival e-mail exchanges in a CMC system as part of a reward program, we assess the ability of word use (micro level), message development (macro level), and intertextual exchange cues (meta level) to detect severe deception by business partners. We empirically assess the predictive ability of our framework using an ordinal multilevel regression model. Results indicate that deceivers minimize the use of referencing and self-deprecation but include more superfluous descriptions and flattery. Deceitful channel partners also overstructure their arguments and rapidly mimic the linguistic style of the account manager across dyadic e-mail exchanges. Thanks to its diagnostic value, the proposed framework can support firms’ decision making and guide compliance monitoring system development

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untangling a Web of Lies: Exploring Automated Detection of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication

Ludwig

Laer

Ruyter

et al. 2016

Journal of Management Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…De forma geral, os dados do presente estudo mostram que, em algum grau, os participantes foram capazes de detectar mentiras, mostrando um desempenho acima do acaso, diferente daquele geralmente apontado na literatura (DePaulo, Kirkendol, Tang & O'Brien, 1988). O delineamento utilizado não permitiu responder de forma clara sobre os efeitos do treino com feedback, nem sobre a generalização da habilidade treinada.…”

Section: Conclusãounclassified

“…Os dados da literatura em detecção de mentiras por meio da observação do comportamento do mentiroso são mais pessimistas: a acurácia dos observadores nas tarefas de detecção raramente passa de 60%, sendo 50% considerado acaso ou chance (DePaulo, Kirkendol, Tang & O'Brien, 1988).…”

unclassified

Contando e detectando mentiras: efeito do feedback sobre o desempenho

Quinta

Coelho

2009

Psic.: Teor. e Pesq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO -Estudos nos quais pessoas são testadas ao detectar mentiras mostram que a maioria da população parece ter essa habilidade pouco desenvolvida. O objetivo do presente trabalho foi avaliar o efeito do feedback dado após cada julgamento sobre a detecção de mentiras, com exposição prolongada à situação experimental, na qual detector e emissor interagiam frente a frente. Os resultados mostraram que o feedback levou a uma melhora do desempenho de todos os detectores, com porcentagens de acerto de até 100% em uma sessão. Contudo, o desempenho dos detectores mostrou pouca estabilidade e os dados sobre a generalização para outros emissores foram inconclusivos. Medidas independentes do comportamento dos emissores não revelaram diferenças consistentes entre verdades e mentiras, ainda que relatos pós-experimentais tenham apontado nessa direção. Foi discutida a importância de uma análise de dados individualizada e a necessidade de delineamentos que isolem a aprendizagem de detector e emissor.Palavras-chave: detecção; mentira; treino; feedback. Telling and Detecting Lies: The Effect of Feedback on PerformanceABSTRACT -Studies in which people are tested for detecting lies have shown that most of the population seems to have poorly developed lie-detection skills. The goal of this study was to assess the effect of feedback given after each judgment on lie detection, with extended exposure to an experimental situation in which detector and sender interacted face-to-face. Results showed that feedback led to performance improvement for all detectors, with accuracy rates up to 100% in a single session. However, detectors' performance showed little stability, and the data about generalization to other senders were inconclusive. Independent measures of senders' behavior didn't reveal consistent differences between truths and lies, even though post-experimental reports have pointed in this direction. The importance of an individualized data analysis and the need for experimental designs that isolate learning of detector and sender were discussed.Keywords: detection; lie; training; feedback. A mentira faz parte de nossas vidas. Nossas relações sociais habituais envolvem mentir e ouvir mentiras, mesmo que nem sempre (ou quase nunca) nos atentemos a isso. Estudos naturalísticos sobre a mentira mostram que, em média, as pessoas contam uma mentira a cada três interações sociais (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). Algumas dessas mentiras são brandas e têm funções de regulação social, enquanto outras podem ser mais sérias e prejudicar seu alvo em vantagem daquele que conta a mentira (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer & Epstein, 1996). Mas como saber quando uma pessoa está mentindo? Cientistas de diversas áreas do conhecimento têm se ocupado dessa pergunta, e os resultados de algumas décadas de pesquisa mostram que não existe uma única resposta para ela (Ekman, 2001;Iacono & Lykken, 2002).O termo detector de mentiras tem sido tradicionalmente associado ao teste do polígrafo, que consiste em um conjunto de aparelhos ligados ao corpo de uma pessoa que...

show abstract

Police officers ability to detect deception in high stakes situations and in repeated lie detection tests

Vrij

Mann

Robbins

et al. 2006

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirty-seven police officers, not identified in previous research as belonging to groups that are superior in lie detection, attempted to detect truths and lies told by suspects during their videotaped police interviews. In order to measure consistency in their ability, the officers each participated in four different tests, each of which was on a different day. They were asked to indicate their confidence in being able to distinguish between truths and lies prior to the first test and after completing all four tests. We predicted that accuracy rates would be higher than those typically found in research with police officers; that good or poor performances on an individual test would be partly caused by luck, and, consequently, participants' accuracy scores were likely to progress towards the mean if their performance on all four tests was to be combined; and that officers would underestimate their own performance. These hypotheses were supported.In lie detection studies observers are typically shown videoclips from numerous liars and truth tellers and are asked after each clip to indicate whether the person was lying or telling the truth. Those studies often show individual differences in people's accuracy (Vrij, 2000a(Vrij, , 2004. The question is, how meaningful are those individual differences? The problem is that participants are typically tested only once. It therefore cannot be ruled out that a particular good or bad performance on the single lie detection task was just a matter of luck. This is a particularly relevant point in studies where attempts are made to unravel the strategies used by good lie detectors. In those studies lie detectors are, apart from making veracity judgements, asked to indicate which cues they paid attention to when making their veracity judgements

show abstract

The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions

Cited by 113 publications

References 20 publications

Untangling a Web of Lies: Exploring Automated Detection of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication

Untangling a Web of Lies: Exploring Automated Detection of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication

Contando e detectando mentiras: efeito do feedback sobre o desempenho

Police officers ability to detect deception in high stakes situations and in repeated lie detection tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About