Detecting deception is a ubiquitous, but difficult component of daily interactions. While prior work has shown that people are poor lie detectors, research has also shown that increased familiarity with the statement sender impacts accuracy. The current study examined how increased familiarity with a statement sender, as well as the type of statement provided, influenced detection accuracy. Participants judged truthful and deceptive statements from different speakers that varied in how familiar they were to the participant (pre-experimental familiarity, experimental familiarity, no familiarity). The statements that were evaluated varied in veracity, statement type (descriptions or denials), and whether the statements had been practiced. Participants believed they were more accurate in their veracity assessments for the pre-experimentally familiar speakers compared to the other speaker types. While participants were more accurate for pre-experimentally familiar speakers compared to strangers, there was no difference in accuracy between judgments for the pre- and experimentally familiar speakers. Participants were also more likely to believe statements that had been practiced, regardless of the statements’ actual veracity or their degree of familiarity with the speaker.
AndersonD. E. (1999). Cognitive and motivational processes underlying truth bias (Doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia.
2.
AndersonD. E.AnsfieldM. E.DePauloB. M. (1999). Love’s best habit: Deception in the context of relationships. In PhilippotP.FeldmanR. S.CoatsE. J. (Eds), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 372–409). Cambridge University Press.
3.
AndersonD. E.DePauloB. M.AnsfieldM. E. (2002). The development of deception detection skill: A longitudinal study of same-sex friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 536–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202287010
4.
AnsfieldM. (1995). Familiarity effects in nonverbal understanding: Recognizing our own facial expressions and our friends’. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 135–149.
BondC. F.DePauloB. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477
7.
BrandtD. R.MillerG. R.HockingJ. E. (1980a). Effects of self-monitoring and familiarity on deception detection. Communication Quarterly, 28, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378009369370
8.
BrandtD. R.MillerG. R.HockingJ. E. (1980b). The ruth deception attribution: Effects of familiarity on the ability of observers to detect deception. Human Communication Research, 5, 99–110.
9.
BrandtD. R.MillerG. R.HockingJ. E. (1982). Familiarity and lie detection: A replication and extension. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46(3), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318209374086
10.
BullerD. B.StrzyzewskiK. D.ComstockJ. (1991). Interpersonal deception: I. Deceivers’ reactions to receivers’ suspicions and probing. Communication Monographs, 58, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376211
11.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. B.EbesuA. S.RockwellP. (1994). Interpersonal deception: V. Accuracy in deception detection. Communication Monographs, 61(4), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376340
12.
CampbellJ.ThompsonV. (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior research methods, 44, 1255–1265.
13.
CashD. K.DianiskaR. E.LaneS. M. (2019). The effect of statement type and repetition on deception detection. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4, 11–38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0194-z
14.
CasoL.PalenaN.CarlessiE.VrijA. (2019). Police accuracy in truth/lie detection when judging baseline interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(6), 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2019.1642258
15.
ColvinC. R.VogtD.IckesW. (1997). Why do friends understand each other better than strangers do? In IckesW. (Ed), Empathic accuracy (pp. 169–193). Guilford Press.
DePauloB. M.CharltonK.CooperH.LindsayJ. J.MuhlenbruckL. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 1(4), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_5
18.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63
19.
DianiskaR. E.CashD. K.LaneS. M.MeissnerC. A. (2019). The reciprocal nature of lying and memory: Memory confabulation and diagnostic cues to deception. In Docan-MorganT. (Ed), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 347–365). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_18
20.
DuranG.DochezS.TapieroI.MichaelG. A. (2020). Opinions, actions and emotions: Does the content of lies affect their detectability?Psychology, Crime and Law, 26(10), 927–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2020.1742341
21.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 288–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036006
22.
EvansJ. R.MichaelS. W.MeissnerC. A.BrandonS. E. (2013). Validating a new assessment method for deception detection: Introducing a psychologically based credibility assessment tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.002
23.
FeeleyT. H.deTurckM. A.YoungM. J. (1995). Baseline familiarity in lie detection. Communication Research Reports, 12(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099509362052
24.
FlemingJ. H.DarleyJ. M.HiltonJ. L.KojetinB. A. (1990). Multiple audience problem: A strategic communication perspective on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.58.4.593
GranhagP. A.StrömwallL. A. (1999). Repeated interrogations–stretching the deception detection paradigm. Expert Evidence, 7(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008993326434
27.
HartwigM.BondC. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023589
28.
IckesW.SimpsonJ. A. (1997). Managing empathic accuracy in close relationships. In IckesW. (Ed), Empathic accuracy (pp. 218–250). Guilford Press.
29.
KaplarM. E.GordonA. K. (2004). The enigma of altruistic lying: Perspective differences in what motivates and justifies lie telling within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11(4), 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00094.x
30.
KassinS. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk?American Psychologist, 60(3), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
31.
KimR. K.LevineT. R. (2011). The effect of suspicion on deception detection accuracy: Optimal level or opposing effects?Communication Reports, 24(2), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2011.615272
32.
LevineT. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT) a theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14535916
33.
LevineT. R.McCornackS. A. (1992). Linking love and lies: A formal test of the McCornack and Parks model of deception detection. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407592091008
34.
LevineT. R.ParkH. S.McCornackS. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the ‘‘veracity effect. Communication Monographs, 66(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376468
35.
MannS. A.VrijA.FisherR. P.RobinsonM. (2008). See no lies, hear no lies: Differences in discrimination accuracy and response bias when watching or listening to police suspect interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(8), 1062–1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1406
36.
McCornackS. A.LevineT. R. (1990). When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception. Communication Monographs, 57(3), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759009376197
37.
McCornackS. A.ParksM. R. (1986). Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. In McLaughlinM. L. (Ed), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 377–389). Sage.
38.
MillarM. G.MillarK. U. (1997). The effects of cognitive capacity and suspicion on truth bias. Communication Research, 24(5), 556–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024005005
39.
MorrisW. L.SternglanzR. W.AnsfieldM. E.AndersonD. E.SnyderJ. L.DePauloB. M. (2016). A longitudinal study of the development of emotional deception detection within new same-sex friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215619876
40.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G. (1999). The (mental) ties that bind: Cognitive structures that predict relationship resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1228–1244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1228
41.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.GriffinD. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79
42.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
StellerM.KohnkenG. (1989). Criteria-based content analysis. In RaskinD. C. (Ed), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217-245). Springer-Verlag.
45.
SternglanzR. W.DePauloB. M. (2004). Reading nonverbal cues to emotions: The advantages and liabilities of relationship closeness. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(4), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-004-4158-7
46.
StiffJ. B.KimH. J.RameshC. N. (1992). Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception. Communication Research, 19(3), 326–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019003002
47.
StinsonL.IckesW. (1992). Empathic accuracy in the interactions of male friends versus male strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.787
48.
ThomasG.FletcherG. J. O. (2003). Mind-reading accuracy in intimate relationships: Assessing the roles of the relationship, the target, and the judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1079–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1079
49.
TidwellN. D.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2012). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01405.x
50.
TorisC.DePauloB. M. (1985). Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1063–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1063
51.
Van BockstaeleB.VerschuereB.MoensT.SuchotzkiK.DebeyE.SpruytA. (2012). Learning to lie: Effects of practice on the cognitive cost of lying. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 526. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00526
52.
VrijA. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Wiley.
53.
VrijA.BaxterM. (1999). Accuracy and confidence in detecting truths and lies in elaborations and denials: Truth bias, lie bias and individual differences. Expert Evidence, 7(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008932402565
54.
VrijA.MannS. A.FisherR. P.LealS.MilneR.BullR. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y
55.
ZuckermanM.SpiegelN. H.DePauloB. M.RosenthalR. (1982). Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00987066
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
