Does (Biasing) Nonverbal Information Deteriorate the Accuracy of the Take‐the‐Best Heuristic for Deception Detection?

ABSTRACT People are poor lie detectors, partly because they hold false beliefs about nonverbal cues to deception. Here, we investigated if guiding people to rely only on a message's detailedness (“take‐the‐best”) boosts their lie detection and to what extent such heuristic judgments are immune to nonverbal information. In three studies ( N s = 109, 88 and 144), participants made detailedness‐based veracity judgements, of text versus video statements (Study 1), or of statements without or with biasing nonverbal behavior (truth tellers diverting, liars maintaining gaze; Studies 2 and 3). Compared to unguided judgements, participants using the heuristic method achieved higher deception detection accuracy throughout. Mere access to nonverbal behavior did not deteriorate performance (Study 1), but the heuristic was not fully immune to biasing nonverbal behavior (Studies 2, 3). Our findings challenge the lay notion that access to nonverbal behavior benefits deception detection and suggest that only focusing on diagnostic cues improves lie detection.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Published
2024-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70006
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Deception detection and forensic psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.29
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does (Biasing) Nonverbal Information Deteriorate the Accuracy of the Take‐the‐Best Heuristic for Deception Detection?

Bruno Verschuère, Aaron B. Lob, Nisrin Chakir, Laurine van Munster van Heuven
2 citations
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Deception detection and forensic psychology
1.29
article

Does (Biasing) Nonverbal Information Deteriorate the Accuracy of the Take‐the‐Best Heuristic for Deception Detection?

Bruno Verschuère, Aaron B. Lob, Nisrin Chakir, Laurine van Munster van Heuven
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT People are poor lie detectors, partly because they hold false beliefs about nonverbal cues to deception. Here, we investigated if guiding people to rely only on a message's detailedness (“take‐the‐best”) boosts their lie detection and to what extent such heuristic judgments are immune to nonverbal information. In three studies ( N s = 109, 88 and 144), participants made detailedness‐based veracity judgements, of text versus video statements (Study 1), or of statements without or with biasing nonverbal behavior (truth tellers diverting, liars maintaining gaze; Studies 2 and 3). Compared to unguided judgements, participants using the heuristic method achieved higher deception detection accuracy throughout. Mere access to nonverbal behavior did not deteriorate performance (Study 1), but the heuristic was not fully immune to biasing nonverbal behavior (Studies 2, 3). Our findings challenge the lay notion that access to nonverbal behavior benefits deception detection and suggest that only focusing on diagnostic cues improves lie detection.

Applied Cognitive PsychologyVol. 38(6)
University of Zurich (CH), University of Amsterdam (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Deception detection and forensic psychology
1.29
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.