Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: A lens model examination of consistency and deception

Abstract

Summary Research has attempted to explain perceived cues to deception based upon self‐report of what participants believe are ‘good’ cues to deception, or self‐report of what cues participants say they base their veracity judgements on. However, it is not clear to what extent participants can accurately self‐report what influences their decision‐making. Using a within‐subjects design, 285 participants completed a questionnaire regarding their beliefs about deception before rating a selection of truthful and deceptive statements on a variety of cues. Expert coders also rated the statements for the same cues. Laypeople and expert coders do not conceptualise between‐subject consistency in the same way. A lens model showed that whilst perceptions of cues, such as consistency and amount of detail, influence veracity judgements, these perceptions (and overall veracity judgements) are mostly inaccurate. Fundamentally, there seems to be inconsistencies between how deception research examines consistency and how it is understood and used by laypeople.

The confidence‐accuracy relation – A comparison of metacognition measures in lie detection

“…Recently, researchers advocated mixed effects models to analyze the data of psychological studies, which employ stimulus material, to account for the variability of stimuli (see e.g., Judd et al, 2012;Westfall et al, 2015;Wolsiefer et al, 2017). Following these suggestions, some lie detection studies were analyzed using mixed effects models (e.g., Hudson et al, 2020;Volz et al, 2020;Watkins & Martire, 2015).…”

“…Recently, researchers advocated mixed effects models to analyze the data of psychological studies, which employ stimulus material, to account for the variability of stimuli (see e.g., Judd et al, 2012; Westfall et al, 2015; Wolsiefer et al, 2017). Following these suggestions, some lie detection studies were analyzed using mixed effects models (e.g., Hudson et al, 2020; Volz et al, 2020; Watkins & Martire, 2015). Although we are not aware of studies in which mixed effects models were used specifically to analyze the confidence‐accuracy relation, we have included mixed effects models in our comparison to assist researchers who might consider using them also for the confidence‐accuracy relation (see also Murayama et al, 2014, for the use of mixed effects models in research on metamemory accuracy).…”

‘You can’t bullshit a bullshitter’ (or can you?): Bullshitting frequency predicts receptivity to various types of misleading information

“…This idea finds at least some support in past research showing that people who self‐report engaging more frequently in lying (i.e., deliberately convincing someone of a falsehood) also self‐report being significantly better than average at detecting lies from others (Zvi & Elaad, 2018). Additionally, some studies have found that those who produce more convincing lies are also actually better at detecting lies (Wright, Berry, & Bird, 2012, 2013), though other more recent studies suggest this may not be the case (Hudson, Vrij, Akehurst, Hope, & Satchell, 2020). However, as Frankfurt (2005) and others have pointed out, even though bullshitting is misleading by its very nature, it is distinct from outright deception in that it ‘falls just short’ of lying (Mears, 2002; Meibauer, 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).…”