Expertise in Deception Detection Involves Actively Prompting Diagnostic Information Rather Than Passive Behavioral Observation. (9th July 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Levine, Timothy Roland; Clare, David Daniel; Blair, J. Pete; McCornack, Steve; Morrison, Kelly; Park, Hee Sun
• Is Part Of: Human communication research. Volume 40:Number 4(2014:Oct.)
• Page Start: 442
• Page End: 462
• Publication Date: 2014-07-09
• Subjects: Communication -- Periodicals; 302.2
• DOI: 10.1111/hcre.12032
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0360-3989

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="hcre12032-abs-0001"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p id="hcre12032-para-0001"> <italic>In a proof‐of‐concept study, an expert obtained 100% deception‐detection accuracy over 33 interviews. Tapes of the interactions were shown to</italic> N = <italic>136 students who obtained 79.1% accuracy (Mdn = 83.3%, mode = 100%). The findings were replicated in a second experiment with 5 different experts who collectively conducted 89 interviews. The new experts were 97.8% accurate in cheating detection and 95.5% accurate at detecting who cheated. A sample of</italic> N = <italic>34 students watched a random sample of 36 expert interviews and obtained 93.6% accuracy. The data suggest that experts can accurately distinguish truths from lies when they are allowed to actively question a potential liar, and nonexperts can obtain high accuracy when viewing expertly questioned senders</italic>.</p> </abstract>