The wizards of deception detection

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490071.012

12 - The wizards of deception detection

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Maureen O'Sullivan and

Paul Ekman

Edited by

Pär Anders Granhag and

Leif A. Strömwall

Show author details

Maureen O'Sullivan: Affiliation:
University of San Francisco, USA
Paul Ekman: Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco, USA
Pär Anders Granhag: Affiliation:
Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
Leif A. Strömwall: Affiliation:
Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Wizard … a sage … a person of amazing skill or accomplishment

For many years we have studied individual differences among people in their ability to detect deception from demeanour. Most people do rather poorly in making such judgements. In experimental situations in which someone is either lying or telling the truth half the time, people do little better than chance (i.e., they get average accuracy scores of 50 per cent). This has been found not only in our studies (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), which examined high-stake lies, but also in a wide range of other studies (Malone and DePaulo, 2001). By doing an idiographic analysis, we have discovered some individuals who are highly accurate across different types of deception. This report describes our beginning research with a small group of such ‘wizards’ of deception detection.

In the late 1980s, we started to administer a test of the ability to detect deception, based on our early work with a group of nurses who had lied or been truthful about their feelings as they watched either a gruesome surgical film or a pleasant nature film (Ekman and Friesen, 1974). When we analysed group performance, we found that most groups – police officers, CIA and FBI agents, lawyers, college students, therapists, judges, etc. – did little better than chance. Yet our objective measurements had demonstrated that there were discernible clues that could have been used to distinguish lying from truthfulness accurately (Ekman, Friesen, O'Sullivan, and Scherer, 1980; Ekman, Friesen, and O'Sullivan, 1988).

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts , pp. 269 - 286

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490071.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, C., Keltner, D., and John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (5), 1054–68CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., and Ansfield, M. E. (2002). The development of deception detection skill: A longitudinal study of same-sex friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (4), 536–45CrossRef Google Scholar

Brassington, G. (2003). Mental skills distinguish elite soloist ballet dancers from corps dancers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association Convention, Vancouver, B. C., May, 2003

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., and Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (1), 74–118CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: Norton

Ekman, P. (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (3rd edn). New York: Norton

Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 288–98CrossRef Google Scholar

Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O'Sullivan, M., and Scherer, K. R. (1980). Relative importance of face, body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2), 270–7CrossRef Google Scholar

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and O'Sullivan, M. (1988). Smiles when lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 414–20CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ekman, P., and O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?American Psychologist, 46 (9), 913–20CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., and Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10 (3), 263–6CrossRef Google Scholar

Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., Friesen, W. V., and Scherer, K. R. (1991). Invited article: Face, voice, and body in detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15 (2), 125–35CrossRef Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5 (3), 178–86CrossRef Google Scholar

Fisher, R. P., and Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas

Frank, M. G., and Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (6), 1429–39CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hall, J. A. (1990). Nonverbal sex differences: Accuracy of communication and expressiveness. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press

Köhnken, G. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does it work?Social Behavior, 1, 1–17Google Scholar

Malone, B. E., and DePaulo, B. M. (2001). Measuring sensitivity to deception. In J. A. Hall and F. J. Bernieri (eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: theory and measurement (pp. 103–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5 (1), 64–73Google Scholar

Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., and Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (5), 665–75CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

O'Sullivan, M. (2000). Why I think you're lying. Paper presented at the International Congress of Psychology. Stockholm, Sweden, July 2000

O'Sullivan, M. (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-cried wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1316–27CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

O'Sullivan, M. (in press). Detecting deception and nonverbal communication: Why most people can't ‘read’ others, but a few can. In R. Riggio, and R. Feldman (eds.), Applications of Nonverbal Communication. Mahwah, NJ. Erlbaum

O'Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., Friesen, W., and Scherer, K. R. (1985). What you say and how you say it: The contribution of speech content and voice quality to judgments of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (1), 54–62CrossRef Google Scholar

Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less traveled road: Verbal cues in deception detection in account of fabrication and self experiences events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11 (5), 373–973.0.CO;2-0>CrossRef Google Scholar

Yuille, J. C., Marxman, D., and Cooper, B. (1999). Training investigative interviewing: Adherence to the spirit as well as the letter. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Special issue: Current Issues in Law and Psychiatry, 22 (3–4), 323–36CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.