Cargando…

It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language

Individual differences in lie detection remain poorly understood. Bond and DePaulo’s meta-analysis examined judges (receivers) who were ascertaining lies from truths and senders (deceiver) who told these lies and truths. Bond and DePaulo found that the accuracy of detecting deception depended more o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Law, Marvin K. H., Jackson, Simon A., Aidman, Eugene, Geiger, Mattis, Olderbak, Sally, Kleitman, Sabina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5933718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29723243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196384
_version_ 1783319994374815744
author Law, Marvin K. H.
Jackson, Simon A.
Aidman, Eugene
Geiger, Mattis
Olderbak, Sally
Kleitman, Sabina
author_facet Law, Marvin K. H.
Jackson, Simon A.
Aidman, Eugene
Geiger, Mattis
Olderbak, Sally
Kleitman, Sabina
author_sort Law, Marvin K. H.
collection PubMed
description Individual differences in lie detection remain poorly understood. Bond and DePaulo’s meta-analysis examined judges (receivers) who were ascertaining lies from truths and senders (deceiver) who told these lies and truths. Bond and DePaulo found that the accuracy of detecting deception depended more on the characteristics of senders rather than the judges’ ability to detect lies/truths. However, for many studies in this meta-analysis, judges could hear and understand senders. This made language comprehension a potential confound. This paper presents the results of two studies. Extending previous work, in Study 1, we removed language comprehension as a potential confound by having English-speakers (N = 126, mean age = 19.86) judge the veracity of German speakers (n = 12) in a lie detection task. The twelve lie-detection stimuli included emotional and non-emotional content, and were presented in three modalities–audio only, video only, and audio and video together. The intelligence (General, Auditory, Emotional) and personality (Dark Triads and Big 6) of participants was also assessed. In Study 2, a native German-speaking sample (N = 117, mean age = 29.10) were also tested on a similar lie detection task to provide a control condition. Despite significantly extending research design and the selection of constructs employed to capture individual differences, both studies replicated Bond and DePaulo’s findings. The results of Study1 indicated that removing language comprehension did not amplify individual differences in judge’s ability to ascertain lies from truths. Study 2 replicated these results confirming a lack of individual differences in judge’s ability to detect lies. The results of both studies suggest that Sender (deceiver) characteristics exerted a stronger influence on the outcomes of lie detection than the judge’s attributes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5933718
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59337182018-05-18 It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language Law, Marvin K. H. Jackson, Simon A. Aidman, Eugene Geiger, Mattis Olderbak, Sally Kleitman, Sabina PLoS One Research Article Individual differences in lie detection remain poorly understood. Bond and DePaulo’s meta-analysis examined judges (receivers) who were ascertaining lies from truths and senders (deceiver) who told these lies and truths. Bond and DePaulo found that the accuracy of detecting deception depended more on the characteristics of senders rather than the judges’ ability to detect lies/truths. However, for many studies in this meta-analysis, judges could hear and understand senders. This made language comprehension a potential confound. This paper presents the results of two studies. Extending previous work, in Study 1, we removed language comprehension as a potential confound by having English-speakers (N = 126, mean age = 19.86) judge the veracity of German speakers (n = 12) in a lie detection task. The twelve lie-detection stimuli included emotional and non-emotional content, and were presented in three modalities–audio only, video only, and audio and video together. The intelligence (General, Auditory, Emotional) and personality (Dark Triads and Big 6) of participants was also assessed. In Study 2, a native German-speaking sample (N = 117, mean age = 29.10) were also tested on a similar lie detection task to provide a control condition. Despite significantly extending research design and the selection of constructs employed to capture individual differences, both studies replicated Bond and DePaulo’s findings. The results of Study1 indicated that removing language comprehension did not amplify individual differences in judge’s ability to ascertain lies from truths. Study 2 replicated these results confirming a lack of individual differences in judge’s ability to detect lies. The results of both studies suggest that Sender (deceiver) characteristics exerted a stronger influence on the outcomes of lie detection than the judge’s attributes. Public Library of Science 2018-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5933718/ /pubmed/29723243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196384 Text en © 2018 Law et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Law, Marvin K. H.
Jackson, Simon A.
Aidman, Eugene
Geiger, Mattis
Olderbak, Sally
Kleitman, Sabina
It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language
title It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language
title_full It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language
title_fullStr It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language
title_full_unstemmed It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language
title_short It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language
title_sort it's the deceiver, not the receiver: no individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5933718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29723243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196384
work_keys_str_mv AT lawmarvinkh itsthedeceivernotthereceivernoindividualdifferenceswhendetectingdeceptioninaforeignandanativelanguage
AT jacksonsimona itsthedeceivernotthereceivernoindividualdifferenceswhendetectingdeceptioninaforeignandanativelanguage
AT aidmaneugene itsthedeceivernotthereceivernoindividualdifferenceswhendetectingdeceptioninaforeignandanativelanguage
AT geigermattis itsthedeceivernotthereceivernoindividualdifferenceswhendetectingdeceptioninaforeignandanativelanguage
AT olderbaksally itsthedeceivernotthereceivernoindividualdifferenceswhendetectingdeceptioninaforeignandanativelanguage
AT kleitmansabina itsthedeceivernotthereceivernoindividualdifferenceswhendetectingdeceptioninaforeignandanativelanguage