» Articles » PMID: 36791692

Is It the Judge, the Sender, or Just the Individual Message? Disentangling Person and Message Effects on Variation in Lie-Detection Judgments

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2023 Feb 15
PMID 36791692
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Research suggests that people differ more in their ability to lie than in their ability to detect lies. However, because studies have not treated senders and messages as separate entities, it is unclear whether some senders are generally more transparent than others or whether individual messages differ in their transparency of veracity regardless of senders. Variance attributable to judges, senders, and messages was estimated simultaneously using multiple messages from each sender (totaling more than 45,000 judgments). The claim that the accuracy of a veracity judgment depends on the sender was not supported. Messages differed in their detectability (21% explained variance), but senders did not. Message veracity accounted for most message variation (16.8% of the total variance), but other idiosyncratic message characteristics also contributed significantly. Consistent with the notion that a (mis)match between sender demeanor and veracity determines accuracy, lie and truth detectability differed individually within senders. Judges primarily determined variance in lie-versus-truth classifications (12%) and in confidence (46%) but played no role regarding judgment accuracy (< 0.01%). This work has substantial implications for the design and direction of future research and underscores the importance of separating senders and messages when developing theories and testing derived hypotheses.

References
1.
Judd C, Westfall J, Kenny D . Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012; 103(1):54-69. DOI: 10.1037/a0028347. View

2.
Henrich J, Heine S, Norenzayan A . The weirdest people in the world?. Behav Brain Sci. 2010; 33(2-3):61-83. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. View

3.
Vrij A, Leal S, Granhag P, Mann S, Fisher R, Hillman J . Outsmarting the liars: the benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law Hum Behav. 2008; 33(2):159-66. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-008-9143-y. View

4.
Hartwig M, Bond C . Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychol Bull. 2011; 137(4):643-59. DOI: 10.1037/a0023589. View

5.
Aarts E, Verhage M, Veenvliet J, Dolan C, van der Sluis S . A solution to dependency: using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nat Neurosci. 2014; 17(4):491-6. DOI: 10.1038/nn.3648. View