Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:54:29.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting Observers’ Accuracy when Assessing Credibility: The Effect of the Interaction between Media, Senders’ Competence and Veracity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

Letizia Caso ,
Fridanna Maricchiolo ,
Stefano Livi ,
Aldert Vrij  and
Nicola Palena
Letizia Caso*
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Bergamo (Italy)
Fridanna Maricchiolo
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi Roma Tre (Italy)
Stefano Livi
Affiliation:
Sapienza Università di Roma (Italy)
Aldert Vrij
Affiliation:
University of Portsmouth (UK)
Nicola Palena
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Bergamo (Italy)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Letizia Caso. Università degli Studi di Bergamo. Scienze Umane e Sociali. 24129 Bergamo Lombardia (Italy). E-mail: letizia.caso@unibg.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present experiment examined how the interaction between senders’ communicative competence, veracity and the medium through which judgments were made affected observers’ accuracy. Stimuli were obtained from a previous study. Observers (N = 220) judged the truthfulness of statements provided by a good truth teller, a good liar, a bad truth teller, and a bad liar presented either via an audio-only, video-only, audio-video, or transcript format. Log-linear analyses showed that the data were best explained via the saturated model, therefore indicating that all the four variables interacted, G2(0) = 0, p = 1, Q2 = 1. Follow-up analyses showed that the good liar and bad liar were best evaluated via the transcript (z = 2.5) and the audio-only medium (z = 3.9), respectively. Both the good truth teller and the bad truth teller were best assessed through the audio-video medium (z = 2.1, good truth teller, z = 3.4, bad truth teller). Results indicated that all the factors interacted and played a joint role on observers’ accuracy. Difficulties and suggestions for choosing the right medium are presented.

Keywords

accuracycommunicationdetecting deceptionmedium

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 21 , 2018 , E49
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2018 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner, 15(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Robinson, B. F. (1994). Understanding Log-linear analysis with Ilog: An interactive approach. Hove, UK: LEA.Google Scholar
Bond, C. F. Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F. Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F., Levine, T. R., & Hartwig, M. (2015). New findings in non‐verbal lie detection. In Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 37–58). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal Deception theory. Communication Theory, 6(3), 203–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caso, L., Gnisci, A., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2005). Processes underlying deception: An empirical analysis of truth and lies when manipulating the stakes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caso, L., Maricchiolo, F., Bonaiuto, M., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2006). The impact of deception and suspicion on different hand movements. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-005-0001-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caso, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & De Leo, G. (2006). Deceptive responses: The impact of verbal and non‐verbal countermeasures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505X49936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10(3), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9280.00147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 486–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.486CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gnisci, A. (2005). Sequential strategies of accommodation: A new method in courtroom. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 621–643. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X16363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gnisci, A., & Bonaiuto, M. (2003). Grilling politicians: Politicians’ answers to questions in television interviews and courtroom examinations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(4), 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X03258088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2001). Deception detection based on repeated interrogations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532501168217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bullettin, 137, 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2015). Exploring the nature and origin of beliefs about deception: Implicit and explicit knowledge among lay people and presumed experts. In Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 125–154). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal, 3(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003010010Google Scholar
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 43(3), 283–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, C. U., & Borkenau, P. (1998). Deception and deception detection: The role of cross‐modal inconsistency. Journal of Personality, 66(5), 687–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoke, D., & Burke, P. J. (1980). Log-linear models. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R. (2010). A few transparent liars: Explaining 54% accuracy in deception detection experiments. Annals of the International Communication Association, 34(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2010.11679095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R. (2016). Examining sender and judge variability in honesty assessments and deception detection accuracy: Evidence for a transparent liar but no evidence of deception-general ability. Communication Research Reports, 33(3), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2016.1186629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., … & Lee, J. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37(3), 377–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01407.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Shaw, A., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). Increasing deception detection accuracy with strategic questioning. Human Communication Research, 36(2), 216–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01374.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, M. (1976). Statistical analysis of multiple contingency tables. Two examples. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 3(3), 97–106.Google Scholar
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, S. A., Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Robinson, M. (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.1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, C. N. H., & Masip, J. (2015). The source of the truth bias: Heuristic processing? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strömwall, L., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In Granhag, P. A. & A Strömwall, L. (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 229–250). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R., & Hick, R. F. (2007). Believed cues to deception: Judgments in self‐generated trivial and serious situations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12(2), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X116101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Global Deception Research Team (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 37(1), pp. 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2008a). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Vrij, A. (2008b). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection a plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(10), 1323–1336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808321530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2016). Baselining as a Lie Detection Method. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 1112–1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Who killed my relative? Police officers’ ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160108401791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, G., Schertler, E., & Bull, P. (2009). Detecting deception from emotional and unemotional cues. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-008-0057-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar