Abstract
Previous research has indicated that individuals typically perform quite poorly in discerning truths from lies, and that confidence in judged veracity is not predictive of objective accuracy. In this experiment, we investigated the joint influence of construal level and judgment mode on detection accuracy and confidence. Participants (N = 161) watched eight videotaped true and false statements while adopting a high or low level of construal, and received instructions to detect the deceptiveness of the statements either before (online judgments) or after (offline judgments) watching the videos. Contrary to our predictions, construal level and judgment mode did not influence detection accuracy independently or interactively. However, low level participants were less confident when making judgments offline as opposed to online, whereas the confidence of high level participants was unaffected by judgment mode. Implications for deception detection research and practice are discussed.
References
Aamondt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner, 15, 6-11.Search in Google Scholar
Akehurst, L., Kohnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461-471. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<461::AID-ACP413>3.0.CO;2-2Search in Google Scholar
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Zemla, J. C. (2010). Missing the trees for the forest: A construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 436-451. doi:10.1037/a0020218Search in Google Scholar
Amit, E., Algom, D., & Trope, Y. (2009). Distance-dependent processing of pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 400-415. doi:10.1037/a0015835Search in Google Scholar
Bless, H., & Burger, A. M. (2016). A closer look at social psychologists’ silver bullet: Inevitable and evitable side effects of the experimental approach. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 296-308. doi:10.1177/1745691615621278Search in Google Scholar
Bless, H., & Forgas, J. P. (2000). The message within: Toward a social psychology of subjective experiences. In H. Bless & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp. 372-392). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bond, C. F. J., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2Search in Google Scholar
Braga, J. N., Ferreira, M. B., & Sherman, S. J. (2015). The effects of construal level on heuristic reasoning: The case of representativeness and availability. Decision, 2, 216-227. doi:10.1037/dec0000021Search in Google Scholar
Bull, R. (2004). Training to detect deception from behavioural cues: Attempts and problems. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 251-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Crum, A. J., Corbin, W. R., Brownell, K. D., & Salovey, P. (2011). Mind over milkshakes: Mindsets, not just nutrients, determine ghrelin response. Health Psychology, 30, 424-429. doi:10.1037/a0023467Search in Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346-357. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_5Search in Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74Search in Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95-109. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00007.xSearch in Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral , and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146Search in Google Scholar
Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local processing fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631-636. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
Fukukura, J., Ferguson, M. J., & Fujita, K. (2013). Psychological distance can improve decision making under information overload via gist memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 658-665. doi:10.1037/a0030730Search in Google Scholar
Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1576-1588. doi:10.1177/0146167210386238Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. J. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643-659. doi:10.1037/a0023589Search in Google Scholar
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgement depends on whether the judgement task is memory-based or on-line. Psychology Review, 93, 258-268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.258Search in Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217Search in Google Scholar
Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1-24. doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1001Search in Google Scholar
Langer, E., Djikic, M., Pirson, M., Madenci, A., & Donohue, R. (2010). Believing is seeing: Using mindlessness (mindfully) to improve visual acuity. Psychological Science, 21, 661-666. doi:10.1177/0956797610366543Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Lee, A. Y., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 735-747. doi:10.1086/605591Search in Google Scholar
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5Search in Google Scholar
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201-1205. doi:10.1126/ science.1161958Search in Google Scholar
Moi, W. Y., & Shanks, D. R. (2015). Can lies be detected unconsciously? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-10. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.01221Search in Google Scholar
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163. doi:10.2307/271063Search in Google Scholar
Reinhard, M.-A. (2010). Need for Cognition and the process of lie detection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 961-971. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.002Search in Google Scholar
Reinhard, M.-A., Greifeneder, R., & Scharmach, M. (2013). Unconscious processes improve lie detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 721-739. doi:10.1037/a0034352Search in Google Scholar
Reinhard, M.-A., Sporer, S. L., & Scharmach, M. (2013). Perceived familiarity with a judgmental situation improves lie detection ability. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72, 43-52. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000098Search in Google Scholar
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 1-75. doi:10.1016/1041-6080(95)90031-4Search in Google Scholar
Rim, S., Amit, E., Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Halbeisen, G., & Algom, D. (2015). How words transcend and pictures immerse: On the association between medium and level of construal. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 123-130. doi:10.1177/1948550614548728Search in Google Scholar
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L., & Province, J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 356-374. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Shani, Y., Igou, E. R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). Different ways of looking at unpleasant truths: How construal levels influence information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 36-44. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.005Search in Google Scholar
Stoate, I., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 815-823. doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.671533Search in Google Scholar
Street, C. N. H., Bischof, W. F., Vadillo, M. A., & Kingstone, A. (2016). Inferring others’ hidden thoughts: Smart guesses in a low diagnostic world. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 539-549. doi:10.1002/bdm.1904Search in Google Scholar
Street, C. N. H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2016). Can the unconscious boost lie-detection accuracy? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 246-250. doi:10.1177/0963721416656348Search in Google Scholar
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. doi:10.1037/a0018963Search in Google Scholar
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660-671. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660Search in Google Scholar
Vrij, A. (2004). Guidelines to catch a liar. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 287-316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Yan, D., Sengupta, J., & Hong, J. (2016). Why does psychological distance influence construal level? The role of processing mode. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 598-613. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw045.Search in Google Scholar
© by Mariela E. Jaffé et al., published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
