To maximize survival and reproductive success, primates evolved the tendency to tell lies and the ability to accurately detect them. Despite the obvious advantage of detecting lies accurately, conscious judgments of veracity are only slightly more accurate than chance. However, findings in forensic psychology, neuroscience, and primatology suggest that lies can be accurately detected when less-conscious mental processes (as opposed to more-conscious mental processes) are used. We predicted that observing someone tell a lie would automatically activate cognitive concepts associated with deception, and observing someone tell the truth would activate concepts associated with truth. In two experiments, we demonstrated that indirect measures of deception detection are significantly more accurate than direct measures. These findings provide a new lens through which to reconsider old questions and approach new investigations of human lie detection.
AlbrechtsenJ. S.MeissnerC. A.SusaK. J. (2009). Can intuition improve deception detection performance?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1052–1055.
2.
AskK.GranhagP. A.JuhlinF.VrijA. (2013). Intending or pretending? Automatic evaluations of goal cues discriminate true and false intentions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 173–177.
3.
BondC. F.DePauloB. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.
4.
BondC. F.KahlerK. N.PaolicelliL. M. (1985). The miscommunication of deception: An adaptive perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 331–345.
5.
ByrneR. W.CorpN. (2004). Neocortex size predicts deception rate in primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 1693–1699.
6.
CarneyD. R.DuboisD.NichiporukN.ten BrinkeL.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2013). The deception equilibrium: The powerful are better liars but the powerless are better lie-detectors. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7.
CunninghamW. A.JohnsonM. K.RayeC. L.GatenbyJ. C.GoreJ. C.BanajiM. R. (2004). Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychological Science, 15, 806–813.
8.
DawkinsR.KrebsJ. R. (1978). Animal signals: Information or manipulation? In KrebsJ. R.DaviesN. B. (Eds.), Behavioural ecology (pp. 282–309). Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific.
9.
DawkinsR.KrebsJ. R. (1979). Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 205, 489–511.
DraineS. C.GreenwaldA. G. (1998). Replicable unconscious semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 286–303.
12.
EkmanP. (1992). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
13.
EkmanP.O’SullivanM. (1991). Who can catch a liar?American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.
14.
EtcoffN. L.EkmanP.MageeJ. J.FrankM. G. (2000). Lie detection and language comprehension. Nature, 405, 139.
15.
EvansJ. S. B.StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.
16.
FrankM. G.EkmanP. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 486–495.
17.
FrankM. G.FeeleyT. H. (2003). To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 58–75.
18.
GilbertD. (1999). What the mind’s not. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 3–11). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60–74.
20.
GoodallJ. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
22.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit social cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
23.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
24.
GrèzesJ.FrithC.PassinghamR. E. (2004). Brain mechanisms for inferring deceit in the actions of others. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 5500–5505.
25.
HallJ. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.
26.
HartwigM.BondC. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659.
27.
KircherJ. C.HorowitzS. W.RaskinD. C. (1988). Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 79–90.
28.
KrebsJ. R.DawkinsR. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2, 380–402.
29.
LissekS.PetersS.FuchsN.WitthausH.NicolasV.TegenthoffM.. . . BruneM. (2008). Cooperation and deception recruit different subsets of the theory-of-mind network. PLoS ONE, 3(4), Article e2023. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002023
30.
MenzelE. W.Jr. (1974). A group of young chimpanzees in a one-acre field: Leadership and communication. In SchrierA. M.StollnitzF. (Eds.), Behavior of nonhuman primates (pp. 83–153). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31.
NosekB. A.GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In BarghJ. A. (Ed.), Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior (pp. 265–292). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
32.
PorterS.WoodworthM.BirtA. R. (2000). Truth, lies, and videotape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643–658.
33.
ReinhardM. A.GreifenederR.ScharmachM. (2013). Unconscious processes improve lie detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 721–739.
34.
ShawJ.PorterS.ten BrinkeL. (2013). Catching liars: Training mental health and legal professionals to detect high-stakes lies. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24, 145–159.
35.
SodianB.FrithU. (1992). Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 591–605.
36.
SporerS. L.MasipJ. (2012, March14). Indirect vs. direct measures to detect deception: A cross-national comparison. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
37.
von HippelW.TriversR. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception [Target article and commentaries]. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34, 1–56.
38.
VrijA.EdwardK.BullR. (2001). Police officers’ ability to detect deceit: The benefit of indirect deception detection measures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 185–196.
39.
VrijA.GranhagP. A.PorterS. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89–121.
40.
WheelerB. C. (2010). Decrease in alarm call response among tufted capuchins in competitive feeding contexts: Possible evidence for counter-deception. International Journal of Primatology, 31, 665–675.
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.
