Article
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Groups of individuals can sometimes make more accurate judgments than the average individual could make alone. We tested whether this group advantage extends to lie detection, an exceptionally challenging judgment with accuracy rates rarely exceeding chance. In four experiments, we find that groups are consistently more accurate than individuals in distinguishing truths from lies, an effect that comes primarily from an increased ability to correctly identify when a person is lying. These experiments demonstrate that the group advantage in lie detection comes through the process of group discussion, and is not a product of aggregating individual opinions (a "wisdom-of-crowds" effect) or of altering response biases (such as reducing the "truth bias"). Interventions to improve lie detection typically focus on improving individual judgment, a costly and generally ineffective endeavor. Our findings suggest a cheap and simple synergistic approach of enabling group discussion before rendering a judgment.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Under uncertainty, groups make more accurate decisions than individuals: medical students achieve more accurate diagnoses in groups than individually (Hautz, Kmmer, Schauber, Spies, & Gaissmaier, 2015); medical diagnoses improve when groups of independent doctors are involved (Kurvers et al., 2016;Wolf, Krause, Carney, Bogart, & Kurvers, 2015); groups of students make more accurate judgments about criminal cases than individuals (van Dijk, Sonnemans, & Bauw, 2014); groups detect lies more accurately than individuals (Klein & Epley, 2015); groups achieve higher IQ scores than individuals (referred to as wisdom of the crowd, Vercammen, Ji, & Burgman, 2019; etc. Although exceptions occur when group members have widely different levels of competence (Galesic, Barkoczi, & Katsikopoulos, 2018;Puncochar & Fox, 2004;van Dijk et al., 2014), groups generally outperform individuals. ...
... Although some of these studies also used real groups (Hautz et al., 2015;Klein & Epley, 2015;van Dijk et al., 2014), all these studies used simulated group decisions: ...
... One frequently used method is majority voting (MV; Hastie & Kameda, 2005;and see for example Klein & Epley, 2015;van Dijk et al., 2014;Kosinski et al., 2012;Kurvers et al., 2016;Sorkin, Hays, & West, 2001). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Background: It has repeatedly been reported that when making decisions under uncertainty, groups outperform individuals. In a lab setting, real groups are often replaced by simulated groups: Instead of performing an actual group discussion, individual responses are aggregated by a numerical computation. While studies typically use unweighted majority voting (MV) for this aggregation, the theoretically optimal method is confidence weighted majority voting (CWMV) - if confidence ratings for the individual responses are available. However, it is not entirely clear how well the theoretically derived CWMV method predicts real group decisions and confidences. Therefore, we compared simulated group responses using CWMV and MV to real group responses. Results: Simulated group decisions based on CWMV matched the accuracy of real group decisions very well, while simulated group decisions based on MV showed lower accuracy. Also, CWMV well predicted the confidence that groups put into their group decisions. Yet, individuals and real groups showed a bias towards under--confidence while CWMV does not. Conclusion: Our results highlight the importance of taking into account individual confidences when investigating group decisions: We found that real groups can aggregate individual confidences such that they match the optimal aggregation given by CWMV. This implies that research using simulated group decisions should use CWMV and not MV.
... This concurs with research into the merit of discussion to support sharing of expertise, promote effectiveness, and distinguish reliable from unreliable expertise (Bahrami et al., 2012;Klein & Epley, 2015;Minson, Liberman, & Ross, 2011), despite research evidence that participants generally believe informal group discussion to be of limited value to performance (Mercier, Trouche, Yama, Heintz, & Girotto, 2014). It could be that group members felt that this increased disagreement was not managed within the restrictions of the NGT process since it might require extra time for clarification and deliberation through discussion. ...
... Evidence has shown that despite discussion being traditionally viewed as unhelpful to efficient performance of groups (Mercier, Trouche, Yama, Heintz, & Girotto, 2014), it has been found to be helpful for encouraging the sharing of expertise, increasing effectiveness, and evaluating information credibility (Bahrami et al., 2012;Klein & Epley, 2015;Minson, Liberman, & Ross, 2011). ...
Conference Paper
Aims: This is a feasibility pilot study that aimed to capture committee member and technical team experiences of current informal consensus practices, previous experiences of formal consensus methods, and expectations for the planned use of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) formal consensus method. Method: Twelve participants, including committee and technical team members across two guideline groups engaged in semi-structured interviews before using NGT. All of the committee members of one guideline group then answered Likert-scale questions about their experience after using NGT. Results: Themes were extracted from the interviews and corroborated by the quantitative data. Themes included: Formal consensus (credibility, effort and resource intensiveness), Methodology (guideline interpretation and implementation, interpretation of evidence, and the restrictiveness of NICE process), Group processes (management of expertise, anonymity, leadership, and discussion), and Continuity of group members. Data were further analysed in the context of participant professional background. Conclusions: Participants identified beneficial elements across formal and informal consensus approaches, and it is likely a hybrid of methods is best suited to healthcare guidelines given their task of combining diverse and complex knowledge to achieve specific guidelines. The results are interpreted in the context of theory and recommendations are made on the future use and conduct of consensus methods.
... They found that intermittent social influence cannot only develop effective information exchanging and mutual learning, but also maintain a high level of exploration improving CI. In a lie detection task, Klein and Epley [45] demonstrated that the results from group discussion are more accurate than those from individuals in the isolation paradigm based on majority voting (mode value). This demonstration verifies that social influence can increase CI in certain conditions. ...
... Social influence [43] The utilizing of social influence on estimates would achieve higher accuracy. [44] Social influence could develop effective information exchanging and mutual learning, maintain a high level of exploration, and improve CI. [45] The higher accuracy would exist in the results from group discussion more than the outputs from individuals in isolation paradigm based on the majority voting. [46] The social bias effect caused by social influence is observed. ...
Article
Full-text available
Collective intelligence (CI) refers to the intelligence that emerges at the macro-level of a collection and transcends that of the individuals. CI is a continuously popular research topic that is studied by researchers in different areas, such as sociology, economics, biology, and artificial intelligence. In this survey, we summarize the works of CI in various fields. First, according to the existence of interactions between individuals and the feedback mechanism in the aggregation process, we establish CI taxonomy that includes three paradigms: isolation, collaboration and feedback. We then conduct statistical literature analysis to explain the differences among three paradigms and their development in recent years. Second, we elaborate the types of CI under each paradigm and discuss the generation mechanism or theoretical basis of the different types of CI. Third, we describe certain CI-related applications in 2019, which can be appropriately categorized by our proposed taxonomy. Finally, we summarize the future research directions of CI under each paradigm. We hope that this survey helps researchers understand the current conditions of CI and clears the directions of future research.
... By pooling the capacities of multiple individuals (either by combining independent judgements, or direct interaction mechanisms), groups of decision makers can reduce uncertainty-an effect known as collective intelligence, swarm intelligence or collective cognition [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. In a variety of domains including predator detection [18 -21], medical decision-making [1,22,23], geopolitical forecasting [24], prediction markets [25] and lie detection [26], it has been shown that groups can outperform the average individual and sometimes even the best individual. Understanding the conditions increasing (or decreasing) the performance of collectives is thus of key importance for several applied contexts. ...
... For example, do individuals in interactive groups naturally specialize in different cues, thereby reaping increased collective benefits? Future work could also investigate and test our predictions in real-world decision-making contexts-for example, medical diagnostics [1], lie detection [26] or any context in which multiple cues need to be integrated to make a final decision. ...
Article
Collective intelligence refers to the ability of groups to outperform individuals in solving cognitive tasks. Although numerous studies have demonstrated this effect, the mechanisms underlying collective intelligence remain poorly understood. Here, we investigate diversity in cue beliefs as a mechanism potentially promoting collective intelligence. In our experimental study, human groups observed a sequence of cartoon characters, and classified each character as a cooperator or defector based on informative and uninformative cues. Participants first made an individual decision. They then received social information consisting of their group members' decisions before making a second decision. Additionally, individuals reported their beliefs about the cues. Our results showed that individuals made better decisions after observing the decisions of others. Interestingly, individuals developed different cue beliefs, including many wrong ones, despite receiving identical information. Diversity in cue beliefs, however, did not predict collective improvement. Using simulations, we found that diverse collectives did provide better social information, but that individuals failed to reap those benefits because they relied too much on personal information. Our results highlight the potential of belief diversity for promoting collective intelligence, but suggest that this potential often remains unexploited because of over-reliance on personal information.
... Another method for combining the decisions of multiple raters is to conduct a group discussion followed by a joint group decision. Group discussions have been shown to increase performance in several domains [39][40][41][42], but at the same time several studies have highlighted the pitfalls associated with group discussions, including social loafing, group think and obedience to authority [43][44][45]. We currently do not know how our mechanism of combining independent decisions compares to scenarios with group discussions followed by a joint group decision, and future research could pitch these collective mechanisms against each other to compare the potential collective gains of both methods [46]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Diagnosing the causes of low back pain is a challenging task, prone to errors. A novel approach to increase diagnostic accuracy in medical decision making is collective intelligence, which refers to the ability of groups to outperform individual decision makers in solving problems. We investigated whether combining the independent ratings of chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists can improve diagnostic accuracy when interpreting diagnostic images of the lumbosacral spine. Evaluations were obtained from two previously published studies: study 1 consisted of 13 raters independently rating 300 lumbosacral radiographs; study 2 consisted of 14 raters independently rating 100 lumbosacral magnetic resonance images. In both studies, raters evaluated the presence of "abnormalities", which are indicators of a serious health risk and warrant immediate further examination. We combined independent decisions of raters using a majority rule which takes as final diagnosis the decision of the majority of the group. We compared the performance of the majority rule to the performance of single raters. Our results show that with increasing group size (i.e., increasing the number of independent decisions) both sensitivity and specificity increased in both data-sets, with groups consistently outperforming single raters. These results were found for radiographs and MR image reading alike. Our findings suggest that combining independent ratings can improve the accuracy of lumbosacral diagnostic image reading.
... Discussion among members of small groups, when there is no time pressure, has proved an excellent strategy for making good use of the knowledge held by group members [85][86][87][88][89][90][91]. The reason revealed in these studies is that discussion involves a recalibration of markers of reliability. ...
Article
Full-text available
We review the literature to identify common problems of decision-making in individuals and groups. We are guided by a Bayesian framework to explain the interplay between past experience and new evidence, and the problem of exploring the space of hypotheses about all the possible states that the world could be in and all the possible actions that one could take. There are strong biases, hidden from awareness, that enter into these psychological processes. While biases increase the efficiency of information processing, they often do not lead to the most appropriate action. We highlight the advantages of group decision-making in overcoming biases and searching the hypothesis space for good models of the world and good solutions to problems. Diversity of group members can facilitate these achievements, but diverse groups also face their own problems. We discuss means of managing these pitfalls and make some recommendations on how to make better group decisions.
... Both lines of research investigate the respective interview situation or try to model it experimentally (e.g., Fenn, McGuire, Langben, & Blandon-Gitlin, 2015;Jung & Reidenberg, 2007;ten Brinke, Stimson, & Carney, 2014). However, in the currently most common experimental paradigm of lie detection research (e.g., Klein & Epley, 2015;Schindler & Reinhard, 2015;Sowden, Wright, Banissy, Catmur, & Bird, 2015), participants are simply videotaped while telling a truthful or an untruthful story and the videos are consequently used as stimulus material for other participants that should detect deception. A very similar approach is frequently used in research on pain behavior and faking pain, featuring videos of people in pain and people faking pain (e.g., Bartlett et al., 2014;Hill & Craig, 2002. ...
Article
Full-text available
Pain serves as a signal to elicit care from others. In turn, displaying pain might be attractive because of the benefits it might bring. Additionally, displaying pain is easy, because helpers distinguish poorly between genuine pain and faked pain. Hence, helpers face the problem of distinguishing true sufferers from free riders, while sufferers face the problem of communicating need convincingly. This article will propose solutions to these adaptive problems. Based on theoretical arguments and on empirical insights from lie detection research, it will be argued that the credibility of pain signals cannot be found in features of the signal itself, but in its context. Namely, pain is obviously credible when the context features unforgeable cues, such as an open wound or the enlarged abdomen of a pregnant woman, but also external cues such as the ice water in cold pressor tasks. In absence of such cues, pain can become credible through costly consequences, such as refraining from rewarding behaviors for a significant period. However, these adaptive mechanisms for communicating need may not be shaped for modern circumstances such as experimental settings and therapeutic encounters.
... Another study finds that married persons are similarly limited in their ability to predict their spouses' answers to questions designed to measure how well the couple knows each other's preferences and beliefs (Epley, 2014). Still other studies find that people have difficulty reliably detecting whether another person is lying or telling the truth (Bond & DePaulo, 2006;Klein & Epley, 2015). Even in situations in which people's inferences of others' mental states are systematically better than chance, errors are often substantial (e.g. ...
... • Group discussion: in another context, Klein et al. showed that group discussion improves collective lie detection ability for untrained groups, compared to simple aggregation of opinions (WOC) [64]. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
In this thesis, we were interested in the impact of the quantity and quality of information ex- changed between individuals in a group on their collective performance in two very specific types of tasks. In a first series of experiments, subjects had to estimate quantities sequentially, and could revise their estimates after receiving the average estimate of other subjects as social information. In a second series of experiments, groups of 22 pedestrians had to segregate into clusters of the same “color”, without visual cue (the colors were unknown), after a short period of random walk. To help them accomplish their task, we used an information filtering system (analogous to a sensory device such as the retina), taking all the positions and colors of individuals in input, and returning an acoustic signal to the subjects (emitted by tags attached to their shoulders) when the majority of their k nearest neighbors was of a different color from theirs.
... collective intelligence | groups | medical diagnostics | dermatology | mammography C ollective intelligence, that is, the ability of groups to outperform individual decision makers when solving complex cognitive problems, is a powerful approach for boosting decision accuracy (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). However, despite its potential to boost accuracy in a wide range of contexts, including lie detection, political forecasting, investment decisions, and medical decision making (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14), little is known about the conditions that underlie the emergence of collective intelligence in real-world domains. Which features of decision makers and decision contexts favor the emergence of collective intelligence? ...
Article
Full-text available
Collective intelligence refers to the ability of groups to outperform individual decision makers when solving complex cognitive problems. Despite its potential to revolutionize decision making in a wide range of domains, including medical, economic, and political decision making, at present, little is known about the conditions underlying collective intelligence in real-world contexts. We here focus on two key areas of medical diagnostics, breast and skin cancer detection. Using a simulation study that draws on large real-world datasets, involving more than 140 doctors making more than 20,000 diagnoses, we investigate when combining the independent judgments of multiple doctors outperforms the best doctor in a group. We find that similarity in diagnostic accuracy is a key condition for collective intelligence: Aggregating the independent judgments of doctors outperforms the best doctor in a group whenever the diagnostic accuracy of doctors is relatively similar, but not when doctors' diagnostic accuracy differs too much. This intriguingly simple result is highly robust and holds across different group sizes, performance levels of the best doctor, and collective intelligence rules. The enabling role of similarity, in turn, is explained by its systematic effects on the number of correct and incorrect decisions of the best doctor that are overruled by the collective. By identifying a key factor underlying collective intelligence in two important real-world contexts, our findings pave the way for innovative and more effective approaches to complex real-world decision making, and to the scientific analyses of those approaches.
... It is well documented that group discussions sometimes lead to the censorship of opinions and so-called groupthink, where the desire to get along with the group's members leads to a preference for arguments that have already been expressed in the group [36]. There are, however, also cases in which group discussions are reported to produce better judgements, such as when trying to detect lies [37]. How about group discussions in the realm of time predictions? ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The prominent approach for reducing a problem’s complexity is to decompose it into less complex subproblems, solve each of these, and then aggregate the subsolutions into an overall solution. In time prediction contexts, this approach is typically the basis of what has been referred to as the bottom-up method, the activity-based method, or predictions based on a work breakdown structure. Generally, across a range of domains, decomposition has been found to improve judgement quality and increase prediction accuracy (Armstrong et al in J Bus Res 68:1717–1731, 2015 [1]). In the domain of time predictions, however, there are also situations in which decomposition leads to overoptimistic and less accurate judgements (Jørgensen in Inf Softw Technol 46:3–16, 2004 [2]).
... Nevertheless, group discussions remain a powerful mean to aggregate the ideas and judgments of several people. In controlled experimental settings, it has been shown many times that groups can outperform single individuals in a wide variety of tasks, such as for detecting lies [14], reconstructing noisy signals [15], establishing a medical diagnosis [16], and in a variety of binary-choice tasks [17]. ...
Article
Full-text available
In many domains of life, business and management, numerous problems are addressed by small groups of individuals engaged in face-to-face discussions. While research in social psychology has a long history of studying the determinants of small group performances, the internal dynamics that govern a group discussion are not yet well understood. Here, we rely on computational methods based on network analyses and opinion dynamics to describe how individuals influence each other during a group discussion. We consider the situation in which a small group of three individuals engages in a discussion to solve an estimation task. We propose a model describing how group members gradually influence each other and revise their judgments over the course of the discussion. The main component of the model is an influence network—a weighted, directed graph that determines the extent to which individuals influence each other during the discussion. In simulations, we first study the optimal structure of the influence network that yields the best group performances. Then, we implement a social learning process by which individuals adapt to the past performance of their peers, thereby affecting the structure of the influence network in the long run. We explore the mechanisms underlying the emergence of efficient or maladaptive networks and show that the influence network can converge towards the optimal one, but only when individuals exhibit a social discounting bias by downgrading the relative performances of their peers. Finally, we find a late-speaker effect, whereby individuals who speak later in the discussion are perceived more positively in the long run and are thus more influential. The numerous predictions of the model can serve as a basis for future experiments, and this work opens research on small group discussion to computational social sciences.
... Additional evidence indicates that group participation improves people's ability to vet information and evaluate its quality, which places the information agent as functioning optimally in a group context. For example, groups are better at detecting lies than are individual members of those groups (Klein & Epley, 2015). Lies can be separated from truths through the process of group discussion, which likely provide helpful information that individuals may lack otherwise. ...
Article
Full-text available
A neglected aspect of human selfhood is that people are information agents. That is, much human social activity involves communicating and discussing information. This occurs in the context of incompletely shared information—but also a group’s store of collective knowledge and shared understanding. This article elucidates a preliminary theory of self as information agent, proposing that human evolution instilled both abilities and motivations for the various requisite functions. These basic functions include (a) seeking and acquiring information, (b) communicating one’s thoughts to others, (c) circulating information through the group, (d) operating on information to improve it, such as by correcting mistakes, and (e) constructing a shared understanding of reality. Sophisticated information agents exhibit additional features, such as sometimes selectively withholding information or disseminating false information for self-serving reasons, cultivating a reputation as a credible source of information, and cooperating with others to shape the shared worldview in a way that favors one’s subgroup. Meaningful information is thus more than a resource for individual action: It also provides the context, medium, and content within which the individual self interacts with its social environment.
Article
The tipping point framework of lie detection posits that people can, and do, accurately detect deception. This framework pinpoints three circumstances that aid accuracy: (i) using methods of measurement that circumvent controlled, conscious cognition; (ii) when individual differences or situational factors portend potent risks to lie detection failure, such as in high-stakes or threatening settings; and (iii) when factors diminish concern over the relationship or reputation costs of asserting that someone has lied. We thus depict a psychological system that registers lie detection consistently in nonconscious reactions (e.g., brain based, bodily, indirect social evaluations) and that allows information into consciousness to inform overt assessments of lies when the costs of failing to detect deception exceed those of signaling distrust.
Article
The argumentative theory of reasoning suggests that the main function of reasoning is to exchange arguments with others. This theory explains key properties of reasoning. When reasoners produce arguments, they are biased and lazy, as can be expected if reasoning is a mechanism that aims at convincing others in interactive contexts. By contrast, reasoners are more objective and demanding when they evaluate arguments provided by others. This fundamental asymmetry between production and evaluation explains the effects of reasoning in different contexts: the more debate and conflict between opinions there is, the more argument evaluation prevails over argument production, resulting in better outcomes. Here I review how the argumentative theory of reasoning helps integrate a wide range of empirical findings in reasoning research.
Article
Groups often make better judgments than individuals, and recent research suggests that this phenomenon extends to the deception detection domain. The present research investigated whether the influence of groups enhances the accuracy of judgments, and whether group size influences deception detection accuracy. 250 participants evaluated written statements with a pre‐established detection accuracy rate of 60% in terms of veracity before viewing either the judgments and rationales of several other group members or a short summary of the written statement and revising or restating their own judgments accordingly. Participants’ second responses were significantly more accurate than their first, suggesting a small positive effect of structured groups on deception detection accuracy. Group size did not have a significant effect on detection accuracy. The present work extends our understanding of the utility of group deception detection, suggesting that asynchronous, structured groups outperform individuals at detecting deception. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Chapter
Full-text available
Deception in Indian electronic media, especially television, has reached its zenith for several reasons in recent times. Due to increased competition among thousands and odd television channels, the media tended to adopt deception and connivance as strategies of survival. While deception subsumes a wide range of communication strategies, connivance is tinged with politics of various hues such as national politics, regionalism, casteism, and market driven economic considerations. The deception often transforms into a form that exhibits a tendency to create crisis by arousing passions of different sections of society towards a topical subject; later it attempts to diffuse the same crisis in connivance with political establishment. The present chapter not only highlights a few such important deceptive stories of television in Indian media in the recent past but also analyses the manner the Telugu media had created severe crisis with regard to demonetization in the twin Telugu states through creation of fake news.
Article
Full-text available
Background It has repeatedly been reported that, when making decisions under uncertainty, groups outperform individuals. Real groups are often replaced by simulated groups: Instead of performing an actual group discussion, individual responses are aggregated by a numerical computation. While studies have typically used unweighted majority voting (MV) for this aggregation, the theoretically optimal method is confidence weighted majority voting (CWMV)—if independent and accurate confidence ratings from the individual group members are available. To determine which simulations (MV vs. CWMV) reflect real group processes better, we applied formal cognitive modeling and compared simulated group responses to real group responses. Results Simulated group decisions based on CWMV matched the accuracy of real group decisions, while simulated group decisions based on MV showed lower accuracy. CWMV predicted the confidence that groups put into their group decisions well. However, real groups treated individual votes to some extent more equally weighted than suggested by CWMV. Additionally, real groups tend to put lower confidence into their decisions compared to CWMV simulations. Conclusion Our results highlight the importance of taking individual confidences into account when simulating group decisions: We found that real groups can aggregate individual confidences in a way that matches statistical aggregations given by CWMV to some extent. This implies that research using simulated group decisions should use CWMV instead of MV as a benchmark to compare real groups to.
Article
Full-text available
Collective decision-making is ubiquitous, and majority-voting and the Condorcet Jury Theorem pervade thinking about collective decision-making. Thus, it is typically assumed that majority-voting is the best possible decision mechanism, and that scenarios exist where individually-weak decision-makers should not pool information. Condorcet and its applications implicitly assume that only one kind of error can be made, yet signal detection theory shows two kinds of errors exist, 'false positives' and 'false negatives'. We apply signal detection theory to collective decision-making to show that majority voting is frequently sub-optimal, and can be optimally replaced by quorum decision-making. While quorums have been proposed to resolve within-group conflicts, or manage speed-accuracy trade-offs, our analysis applies to groups with aligned interests undertaking single-shot decisions. Our results help explain the ubiquity of quorum decision-making in nature, relate the use of sub- and super-majority quorums to decision ecology, and may inform the design of artificial decision-making systems. Editorial note: This article has been through an editorial process in which the authors decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review. The Reviewing Editor's assessment is that all the issues have been addressed (see decision letter).
Chapter
One aspect of social intelligence is the ability to identify when others are being deceptive. It would seem that individuals who were bestowed with such an ability to recognize honest signals of emotion, particularly when attempts to suppress them are made, would have a reproductive advantage over others without it. Yet the research literature suggests that on average people are good at detecting only overt manifestations of these signals. We argue instead that our evolution as a social species living in groups permitted discovery of deceptive incidents due to the factual evidence of the deception transmitted verbally through social connections. Thus the same principles that pressed for our evolution as a cooperative social species enabled us to develop the equivalent of an intelligence network that would pass along information and evidence, thus rendering a press for an individual lie detector moot.
Article
Are groups superior to individuals in detecting lies, and are there certain personality traits that significantly contribute to a collective lie-detecting capability? In the current research, we compared the ability of small groups to detect deception compared with individuals, and further examined whether small groups comprising more members high in attachment anxiety would show superior performance in detecting deceit. To this end, we asked 233 participants (40 groups and 113 individuals) to watch a series of clips showing a person making either truthful or untruthful statements, and then decide whether the speaker was honest or dishonest. Results confirmed our expectations and showed superior deceit-detection abilities in small groups, and that this ability was proportionate to the number of people high in attachment anxiety in the group. These results are discussed from the perspective of social defense theory, and the utility of diverse social groups in coping with diverse threats.
Article
Full-text available
Although the ability to detect deception is critical in many professional contexts, most observers (including professional lie-catchers) are able to identify deceivers at the level of chance only. Further, almost all studies of deception detection have used low-stakes deception scenarios in determin- ing deceptive behavior and training effectiveness. We evaluated the effec- tiveness of a comprehensive, empirically based full-day training workshop in improving the ability of 42 legal and mental health professionals to detect extremely high-stakes emotional lies. Their ability to discriminate sincere and insincere pleaders was measured at baseline and post-training. Overall, accuracy increased significantly from M = 46.4 to 80.9%. We cau- tiously suggest that training professionals to apply empirically validated methods to deception detection can increase their ability to correctly discriminate between liars and truth-tellers. Strategies to facilitate the detection of deception via the development of training programs are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Current aviation security systems identify behavioral indicators of deception to assess risks to flights, but they lack a strong psychological basis or empirical validation. We present a new method that tests the veracity of passenger accounts. In an in vivo double-blind randomized-control trial conducted in international airports, security agents detected 66% of deceptive passengers using the veracity test method compared with less than 5% using behavioral indicator recognition. As well as revealing advantages of veracity testing over behavioral indicator identification, the study provides the highest levels to date of deception detection in a realistic setting where the known base rate of deceptive individuals is low. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
Full-text available
This article challenges current interpersonal deception literature by summarizing seven studies that examined the ability of members to detect deception in the context of organizational processes. The combined effect (r = .472) indicated that organizational members are able to differentiate honest from dishonest communicators. According to the Binomial Effect Size Display, observers correctly classified honest or dishonest communication in approximately three of four circumstances (73.6%). This finding is important for situations such as employment interviews or other circumstances when organizational members or constituents need to assess the accuracy of information provided by current or potential members. The theoretical implications for interpersonal and organizational deception research are discussed along with the practical ramifications of this study for employment interviewing, manager/employee communication, and retail sales.
Article
Full-text available
Why do people frequently cooperate in defiance of their immediate incentives? One explanation is that individuals are conditionally cooperative. As an explanation of behavior in one-shot settings, such preferences require individuals to be able to discern their opponents' preferences. Using data from a television game show, we provide evidence about how individuals implement conditionally cooperative preferences. We show that contestants forgo large sums of money to be cooperative; they cooperate at heightened levels when their opponents are predictably cooperative; and they fare worse when their observable characteristics predict less cooperation because opponents avoid cooperating with them. (c) 2010 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Article
Full-text available
This quantitative review of 130 comparisons of interindividual and intergroup interactions in the context of mixed-motive situations reveals that intergroup interactions are generally more competitive than interindividual interactions. The authors identify 4 moderators of this interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect, each based on the theoretical perspective that the discontinuity effect flows from greater fear and greed in intergroup relative to interindividual interactions. Results reveal that each moderator shares a unique association with the magnitude of the discontinuity effect. The discontinuity effect is larger when (a) participants interact with an opponent whose behavior is unconstrained by the experimenter or constrained by the experimenter to be cooperative rather than constrained by the experimenter to be reciprocal, (b) group members make a group decision rather than individual decisions, (c) unconstrained communication between participants is present rather than absent, and (d) conflict of interest is severe rather than mild.
Article
Full-text available
This review covers recent developments in the social influence literature, focusing primarily on compliance and conformity research published between 1997 and 2002. The principles and processes underlying a target's susceptibility to outside influences are considered in light of three goals fundamental to rewarding human functioning. Specifically, targets are motivated to form accurate perceptions of reality and react accordingly, to develop and preserve meaningful social relationships, and to maintain a favorable self-concept. Consistent with the current movement in compliance and conformity research, this review emphasizes the ways in which these goals interact with external forces to engender social influence processes that are subtle, indirect, and outside of awareness.
Article
Full-text available
How should groups make decisions? The authors provide an original evaluation of 9 group decision rules based on their adaptive success in a simulated test bed environment. When the adaptive success standard is applied, the majority and plurality rules fare quite well, performing at levels comparable to much more resource-demanding rules such as an individual judgment averaging rule. The plurality rule matches the computationally demanding Condorcet majority winner that is standard in evaluations of preferential choice. The authors also test the results from their theoretical analysis in a behavioral study of nominal human group decisions, and the essential findings are confirmed empirically. The conclusions of the present analysis support the popularity of majority and plurality rules in truth-seeking group decisions.
Article
Full-text available
We analyze the accuracy of deception judgments, synthesizing research results from 206 documents and 24,483 judges. In relevant studies, people attempt to discriminate lies from truths in real time with no special aids or training. In these circumstances, people achieve an average of 54% correct lie-truth judgments, correctly classifying 47% of lies as deceptive and 61% of truths as nondeceptive. Relative to cross-judge differences in accuracy, mean lie-truth discrimination abilities are nontrivial, with a mean accuracy d of roughly .40. This produces an effect that is at roughly the 60th percentile in size, relative to others that have been meta-analyzed by social psychologists. Alternative indexes of lie-truth discrimination accuracy correlate highly with percentage correct, and rates of lie detection vary little from study to study. Our meta-analyses reveal that people are more accurate in judging audible than visible lies, that people appear deceptive when motivated to be believed, and that individuals regard their interaction partners as honest. We propose that people judge others' deceptions more harshly than their own and that this double standard in evaluating deceit can explain much of the accumulated literature.
Chapter
People are generally poor at detecting deceit when observing someone’s behaviour or listening to their speech. In this chapter I will discuss the major factors (pitfalls) that lead to failures in catching liars: the sixteen reasons I will present are clustered into three categories: (i) a lack of motivation to detect lies; (ii) difficulties associated with lie detection; and (iii) common errors made by lie detectors. Discussing pitfalls provides insight into how lie detectors can improve their performance (for example, by recognising common biases and avoiding common judgment errors). The second section of this chapter discusses 11 ways (opportunities) to improve lie detection skills. Within this section, I first provide five recommendations for avoiding common errors in detecting lies. Next, I discuss recent lie detection research that introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers. The recommendations are relevant in various settings, from the individual level (e.g., “Is my partner really working late?”) to the societal level (e.g., “Can we trust this suspect when he claims that he is not the serial rapist the police are searching for?”).
Article
ifteen years ago at the beginning of a book chapter on training to detect deception (Bull, 1989) I noted that: An advertisement urging people to join a British police force recently appeared in a Sunday newspaper. Part of it stated that, ‘Most people speak the truth most of the time. When they lie they experience stress and it usually shows’. Accompanying the words in the advertisement were a number of photographs of people. One of these showed a man touching the side of his nose with the index finger of his left hand. The caption for this stated that, ‘The man with his finger to his nose is showing one of the signals associated with lying’. The advertisement continued by saying that, ‘After training, you'll register the particular things a person does when conversing normally. When a change of topic brings about significant changes in their actions you'll notice that too’. Another similar advertisement stated, ‘If you're interviewing a suspect, how do you know if he's telling the truth? You'll be taught the rudiments of body language, gesticulation and body movements that indicate stress and nervousness’. In closing that chapter I made the point that: Until a number of publications in refereed journals appear demonstrating that training enhances the detection of deception, it seems that some police recruitment advertisements and police training books are deceiving their readers.
Article
Can we train people to detect deception? It is the contention of this article that communication scholars should learn how to train law enforcement professionals on how to detect high stake lies, like those faced by police, judges, customs officials, immigration officials, and so forth. It is proposed that in order to know whether we can train or should bother to train people to detect deception, each training study must meet 6 challenges: (1) relevance, (2) high stakes, (3) proper training, (4) proper testing, (5) generalizability across situations, and (6) generalizability over time. Our quantitative review of the literature suggests that training does significantly raise lie detection accuracy rates. Meta-analytic findings indicate a mean effect size of r = .20 across 20 (11 published studies) paired comparisons of lie detection training versus the control group (i.e., those without some type of training). It should be noted that the majority of the studies that attempt to train lie detectors fall short on many of the above challenges. Current research in lie detection training may actually underestimate the ability to train lie detectors due to the stimulus materials employed in most experiments.
Article
Previous research examining the accuracy of deception detection judgments by individuals has concluded that the ability to detect deception is only slightly better than chance. Research has also found that individuals tend to be over‐confident, truth‐biased, and reliant on nonverbal behavior when making veracity judgments. This study (N = 129) tested if differences in deception detection accuracy, truth‐bias, judgmental confidences, and self‐reported cue reliance exist between individual judges and groups of individuals working in collaboration. No significant differences between groups and individuals emerged for accuracy, truth‐bias, or self‐reported cue reliance. Individuals within groups, however, were significantly more confident in their decisions than individuals working alone.
Article
our communicative activity is affected by our idiosyncratic beliefs about the world in general and by beliefs we hold about ourselves / under some circumstances, it seems that our verbalizations can, in turn, affect the very beliefs that direct our conversation / review the recent literature that has considered each of these issues effects of self (communicator) on communication / communication effects on the communicator's social cognitions / effects of other (recipient) on communication / communication effects on the recipient's social cognitions (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
We examined accuracy in detecting the truths and lies of 10 videotaped students who offered their opinions on the death penalty or smoking in public. Student lie detectors were randomly assigned to either the individual condition, where they reported their veracity judgments and confidence independently, or the small group condition, where they recorded their judgments privately and then deliberated with 5 other students before making a consensus judgment of lie, truth, or hung. Results indicated that small group judgments were more accurate than individual judgments when judging deceptive but not truthful communication. Small group individuals also reported greater confidence in their abilities after the task. Finally, groups with a greater number of hung judgments were more accurate, likely due to their employing hung judgments for the most difficult to judge stimulus communicators. These results raise implications for real life group judgments, particularly in light of the increasing availability of technology.
Article
This study assesses the effects of member expertise on group decision-making and group performance. Three-person cooperative groups and three independent individuals solved either an easy or moderately difficult version of the deductive logic game Mastermind. Experimental groups were given veridical performance information, i.e., the members' rankings on prior individual administrations of the task. Control groups were not provided with this information. Results supported the predictions of this study: (1) groups gave more weight to the input of their highest performing members with the group decision-making process being best approximated by post hoc “expert weighted” social decision schemes and (2) groups performed at the level of the best of an equivalent number of individuals.
Article
The ability to detect lying was evaluated in 509 people including law-enforcement personnel, such as members of the U.S. Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency, California police and judges, as well as psychiatrists, college students, and working adults. A videotape showed 10 people who were either lying or telling the truth in describing their feelings. Only the Secret Service performed better than chance, and they were significantly more accurate than all of the other groups. When occupational group was disregarded, it was found that those who were accurate apparently used different behavioral clues and had different skills than those who were inaccurate.
Article
Previous research has found that decision-making groups do not effectively pool unshared information. This study examined how personal expertise facilitates the mentioning and validation of unshared information in collective recall and decision-making groups by increasing members' awareness of who holds what types of information. Assigned expertise increased substantially the proportion of unshared information mentioned during both collective recall and decision-making tasks. Two results supported the hypothesis that assigned expertise provides validation for the recall of unshared information. When expertise was assigned, (a) more of the unshared information mentioned during the recall task was retained on the collectively endorsed written protocol, and (b) unshared information that was mentioned in discussion was more likely to be correctly recognized by members after group interaction.
Article
Corruption in the public sector erodes tax compliance and leads to higher tax evasion. Moreover, corrupt public officials abuse their public power to extort bribes from the private agents. In both types of interaction with the public sector, the private agents are bound to face uncertainty with respect to their disposable incomes. To analyse effects of this uncertainty, a stochastic dynamic growth model with the public sector is examined. It is shown that deterministic excessive red tape and corruption deteriorate the growth potential through income redistribution and public sector inefficiencies. Most importantly, it is demonstrated that the increase in corruption via higher uncertainty exerts adverse effects on capital accumulation, thus leading to lower growth rates.
Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and Implications for Professional Practice
  • A Vrij
Vrij A (2000) Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and Implications for Professional Practice (Wiley, New York).
Communication and social cognition
  • R Kraut
  • E Higgins
Kraut R, Higgins E (1984) Communication and social cognition. Handbook of Social Cognition, eds Wyer RS, Srull TK (Laurence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp 88-127.