IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0196384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language

Author

Listed:
  • Marvin K H Law
  • Simon A Jackson
  • Eugene Aidman
  • Mattis Geiger
  • Sally Olderbak
  • Sabina Kleitman

Abstract

Individual differences in lie detection remain poorly understood. Bond and DePaulo’s meta-analysis examined judges (receivers) who were ascertaining lies from truths and senders (deceiver) who told these lies and truths. Bond and DePaulo found that the accuracy of detecting deception depended more on the characteristics of senders rather than the judges’ ability to detect lies/truths. However, for many studies in this meta-analysis, judges could hear and understand senders. This made language comprehension a potential confound. This paper presents the results of two studies. Extending previous work, in Study 1, we removed language comprehension as a potential confound by having English-speakers (N = 126, mean age = 19.86) judge the veracity of German speakers (n = 12) in a lie detection task. The twelve lie-detection stimuli included emotional and non-emotional content, and were presented in three modalities–audio only, video only, and audio and video together. The intelligence (General, Auditory, Emotional) and personality (Dark Triads and Big 6) of participants was also assessed. In Study 2, a native German-speaking sample (N = 117, mean age = 29.10) were also tested on a similar lie detection task to provide a control condition. Despite significantly extending research design and the selection of constructs employed to capture individual differences, both studies replicated Bond and DePaulo’s findings. The results of Study1 indicated that removing language comprehension did not amplify individual differences in judge’s ability to ascertain lies from truths. Study 2 replicated these results confirming a lack of individual differences in judge’s ability to detect lies. The results of both studies suggest that Sender (deceiver) characteristics exerted a stronger influence on the outcomes of lie detection than the judge’s attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Marvin K H Law & Simon A Jackson & Eugene Aidman & Mattis Geiger & Sally Olderbak & Sabina Kleitman, 2018. "It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196384
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196384
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196384&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0196384?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy L. Etcoff & Paul Ekman & John J. Magee & Mark G. Frank, 2000. "Lie detection and language comprehension," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 139-139, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel J. Benjamin & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2009. "Thin-Slice Forecasts of Gubernatorial Elections," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(3), pages 523-536, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.