Intuition Overrules Logic When Detecting Deception Colette Baudoin Chelsea Schmillen

1. Intuition Overrules Logic When Detecting Deception Colette Baudoin Chelsea Schmillen Emily Stark, Faculty Mentor Minnesota State University, Mankato • Background • Bond and DePaulo (2006) • Researchers performed a meta-analyses on 206 studies • consisting of participants who had no formal training • in lie detection. Their goal was to measure accuracy of • these participants’ lie detection judgments. • The results concluded that participants were no better • than chance (54%) at lie-truth judgments. • Albrechtsen, Meissner, and Susa (2009) • Researchers wanted to determine if deception detection • was improved by intuition or explicit processes. • Experiment 1: Participants in a control group watched • 10 3-minute videos, and participants in an experimental • group watched shortened 15-second clips of each video. • Participants then rated each video as being true or a lie. • The results showed that the experimental group was • significantly more accurate in their ratings. When • watching the 15-second clips, participants were forced • to rely more on their intuition and were more accurate. • This suggests that intuition can improve deception • detection. • Methods • Participants • 71 MNSU students volunteered to participate • Procedure • Participants watched 16 short video clips that featured • a person telling either a true story or a lie. • For each video clip, participants chose whether the • story was true or not. • Participants also rated the individual in the video on • how likeable and trustworthy he/she was, and their • willingness to work on a project with that individual. •  ratings were on a scale of 1-5 (1=not at all, 5=very • much) • Example Questions • “The story in this video was a: (Circle LIE or TRUTH).” • “How much do you like the person in the video?” • “How much do you trust the person in the video?” • “Would you want to work with the person in the video on • a project?” • Pictures above show screenshots taken from 2 of 16 video clips. • (note: Eight individuals had 2 videos each) • Results • Were participants accurate at explicitly detecting deception? • No, our results showed that participants did no better • than chance at distinguishing between lies and truths • (56% correct). • Were participants better at implicitly distinguishing between lies and truth? • Participants were intuitively rating truth tellers • significantly more likeable and more trustworthy than • liars and were more willing to work with the truth- • tellers (all ps<.05). • However, participants were not able to use these • implicit ratings outwardly to be accurate at • distinguishing between a truth and a lie. • Discussion • Hypothesis • Participants will not be accurate at explicitly detecting deception. • Our first hypothesis is supported by the results showing that participants were at chance level for accuracy. • Participants will be better at implicitly distinguishing between lies and truth. • Our second hypothesis is supported by the results showing that participants had different intuitive ratings between lie and truth videos of liking, trusting, and willingness to work with the individual in the clip. • Many people may try to use logic and common sense when detecting a lie, rather than relying solely on their gut feelings. However, our findings suggest that if you use your intuition, you may be better at detecting deception. • Limitations • Not a realistic setting • Restricted to college students • Future Research • Use different methods to encourage intuitive • judgments • Instruct participants to rely on their “gut feeling” • Current Study • This study expands the limited research on intuitive • judgments of deception. • The purpose of this study is to find if participants are • able to implicitly and/or explicitly distinguish between • truths and lies. •  Explicitly – participants will accurately distinguish • true stories from lies •  Implicitly – participants will find truth-tellers more • likeable and trustworthy than liars, • even if they cannot explicitly determine • which stories are true and which are • not • Our findings could benefit numerous professions and • help in every-day social situations • Hypothesis • Participants will not be accurate at explicitly detecting deception. • Participants will be better at implicitly distinguishing between lies and truth. (above figure) Out of 16 video clips, participants’ explicit lie or truth rating was correct 56% of the time. The green line indicates accuracy at chance level. References Albrechtsen, J. S., Meissner, C. A., & Susa, K. J. (2009). Can intuition improve deception detection performance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1052-1055. Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Dr. Emily Stark for giving us the opportunity to help with this research study. We greatly appreciate her encouragement and guidance through the work we have done. Thank you! (above figure) Three separate criteria were rated on a scale of 1 to 5. Ratings differ significantly between truth and lie videos.