Search

This essay has two distinct aims: commentary on Stel et al. (2020) and addressing (Un)Conscious Lie Detection from the Perspective of Truth-Default Theory. Stel et al. (2020) advance the counter-intuitive claim that distrust inhibits truth detection by prompting more deliberate reliance on false beliefs about deception cues. Their proposed mechanism lacks plausibility because cues are generally non- rather than anti-diagnostic. Truth-default theory offers different predictions that may explain the inconsistent findings observed across the previous literature. When in the truth-default state, accuracy is a function of message veracity. People correctly believe honest messages and are duped by lies. In prompted demeanor-based lie detection tasks, accuracy is a function of sender demeanor-veracity matching and sender sampling. In lie detection tasks where message content is diagnostic, deliberative processing improves accuracy.

This research was formally endorsed by the National Police College of Spain, the Behavior and Law Foundation, and the Promoción y Divulgación Científica, S. L. company. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporters., [EN]Previous research has shown that inconsistencies across repeated interviews do not indicate deception because liars deliberately tend to repeat the same story. However, when a strategic interview approach that makes it difficult for liars to use the repeat strategy is used, both consistency and evasive answers differ significantly between truth tellers and liars, and statistical software (binary logistic regression analyses) can reach high classification rates (Masip et al., 2016b). Yet, if the interview procedure is to be used in applied settings the decision process will be made by humans, not statistical software. To address this issue, in the current study, 475 college students (Experiment 1) and 142 police officers (Experiment 2) were instructed to code and use consistency, evasive answers, or a combination or both before judging the veracity of Masip et al.’s (2016b) interview transcripts. Accuracy rates were high (60% to over 90%). Evasive answers yielded higher rates than consistency, and the combination of both these cues produced the highest accuracy rates in identifying both truthful and deceptive statements. Uninstructed participants performed fairly well (around 75% accuracy), apparently because they spontaneously used consistency and evasive answers. The pattern of resultswas the same among students, all officers, and veteran officers only, and shows that inconsistencies between interviews and evasive answers reveal deception when a strategic interview approach that hinders the repeat strategy is used., Junta de Castilla y León. Consejería de Educación. Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación (Ref.: SA086U14)