Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment

Research has shown that complications are more common in truth tellers' accounts than in lie tellers' accounts, but there is currently no experiment that has examined the accuracy of observers' veracity judgments when looking at complications. A total of 87 participants were asked to judge 10 transcripts (five truthful and five false) derived from a set of 59 transcripts generated in a previous experiment by Deeb et al. Approximately half of the participants were trained to detect complications (Trained), and the other half did not receive training (Untrained). Trained participants were more likely to look for complications, but they did not detect them accurately, and thus their veracity judgments did not improve beyond Untrained participants' judgments. We discuss that the training may have been too brief or not sensitive enough to enhance decision-making.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Behavioral Sciences
Published
2024-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090839
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Deception detection and forensic psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.64
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment

Jennifer Burkhardt, Samantha Mann, Haneen Deeb, Sharon Leal et al.
1 citations
Behavioral Sciences
Deception detection and forensic psychology
0.64
article

Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment

Jennifer Burkhardt, Samantha Mann, Haneen Deeb, Sharon Leal, Aldert Vrij
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Research has shown that complications are more common in truth tellers' accounts than in lie tellers' accounts, but there is currently no experiment that has examined the accuracy of observers' veracity judgments when looking at complications. A total of 87 participants were asked to judge 10 transcripts (five truthful and five false) derived from a set of 59 transcripts generated in a previous experiment by Deeb et al. Approximately half of the participants were trained to detect complications (Trained), and the other half did not receive training (Untrained). Trained participants were more likely to look for complications, but they did not detect them accurately, and thus their veracity judgments did not improve beyond Untrained participants' judgments. We discuss that the training may have been too brief or not sensitive enough to enhance decision-making.

Behavioral SciencesVol. 14(9)
University of Portsmouth (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Deception detection and forensic psychology
0.64
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.