To Tell the Truth: The Truth About Detecting Deception
September 1, 2005
To Tell the Truth: An old TV show. Ever see it? Check it out here! Do you think you are good at determining when someone is lying or not? Job interviews and workplace investigations are just two situations were your ability to detect deception may be valuable.
In this posting, I address the following questions:
1. How accurate are people at detecting deception?
95%, 80%, 74%, or 54%?
2. Are gender, education, job type (e.g., being an attorney, police officer) related to ability to detect deception?
Yes or No?
3. What cues (e.g., lack of eye contact; talking fast) are good indicators of deception?
Answers follow next….
1. 54% accurate; people in general are very poor at detecting deception. But, they can be trained to improve their accuracy. Some types of training are better than others.
2. Gender: No (women are not better than men at detecting deception)
Education: No (being more educated or even experienced does not help accuracy).
Job type: Attorneys, police, etc. are NOT better at detecting deception.
3. Good cues include providing fewer details in statements; being more nervous; making fewer spontaneous corrections; and being less likely to admit a lack of memory.
Bottom line? It is difficult to detect deception; probably better to verify, verify, and verify with outside sources!
Read here for a nice summary of the science of detecting deception.
pic by smith
Related Posts
Liar, Liar, Pants Are On Fire! Lying on Resumes
That’s A Crime: Assessing The Accuracy of Criminal Record Databases
My favorite productivity tool: voice recognition software
Good article on preventing discrimination claims
Ninth Circuit finds statements insufficient to est…
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.
Comment by George
Other “cues” from the article: “Made statements that were not as plausible, logical, or consistent with other statements.”
These, of course, are key vulnerabilities lawyers work to uncover in cross-examination.
Interesting that whether a prior inconsistent statement is evidence of truthfulness or a lie apparently depends on the circumstances.
If it was a “spontaneous correction” and is stated as such (e.g. “I just remembered, I actually got that phone call Sunday morning, not Saturday like I said before, because now I remember I was getting ready for church when the phone rang”) it’s a sign of truthfulness.
If it comes out only when the story is being retold on cross or under further questioning, with no recognition it is inconsistent, it signals a lie.
Just my guess based on the article, which is actually quite brief.