Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Meta-analysis of 247 samples; level assigned by non-clinical design analogy.
PubMed 18605814 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477
What was done
The authors conducted a meta-analysis of individual differences in deception detection across 247 samples, restricted to real-time judgments of strangers without special aids. They used a statistical correction method to account for random measurement error in nominal individual differences.
What was found
Measurement-corrected standard deviations in lie-detection ability were less than 1%. Judges' accuracy varied no more widely than expected by chance, and the highest-performing judges performed no better than stochastic mechanisms would predict. Differences in response bias (inclination to believe others) exceeded differences in detection ability. Senders varied in lie detectability and baseline credibility, with judgment outcomes depending more on sender credibility than any judge individual difference.
Why it matters
The findings challenge the idea that certain individuals possess innate, superior lie-detection abilities in real-time interactions, demonstrating that variance in outcomes is largely driven by sender characteristics and response bias.
Limits
The scope is limited to real-time judgments of strangers without investigative aids; judgments of familiar individuals or aided detection methods were not evaluated. Total participant count and demographic details are not reported in the abstract.
Cited by
- contradicts Women are better at detecting lies and are better liars than men.