Commentary: Can ordinary people detect deception after all?

Chris Street, Miguel A. Vadillo

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

No one likes to call someone a liar. But the authors of the tipping point account (ten Brinke, Vohs, & Carney, 2016) claim that it is evolutionary prudent to spot lies that can harm us in order to determine who to trust. As such, they propose the reputational costs of confronting a liar might be overcome by detecting lies unconsciously. When confronted with information that creates a threat response, the unconscious can use the threat response to detect deceptive cues and to unconsciously infer deception, all the while keeping this information out of the conscious mind. The account suggests this is beneficial because conscious awareness of the deception “could impel the perceiver to confront the liar” (p. 580). The account is controversial insofar as it claims that people can detect deception, in contrast to past work showing otherwise (47% detection rate of lies, and 61% of truths, resulting from bias to judge statements as true: Bond & DePaulo, 2006), and also makes novel claims about an unconscious ability. Although it is welcoming to see new theoretical approaches to lie detection, the account (a) makes claims that do not match the data and conclusions presented in the studies cited to build its case, (b) offers no testable definition of unconscious processes, and (c) contains internal contradictions.
LanguageEnglish
Article number1789
Number of pages3
JournalFrontiers in Cognitive Science
Volume8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Oct 2017

Fingerprint

threat
ability
trend
costs

Cite this

@article{0b76915f429f4c6caad7487f742f3869,
title = "Commentary: Can ordinary people detect deception after all?",
abstract = "No one likes to call someone a liar. But the authors of the tipping point account (ten Brinke, Vohs, & Carney, 2016) claim that it is evolutionary prudent to spot lies that can harm us in order to determine who to trust. As such, they propose the reputational costs of confronting a liar might be overcome by detecting lies unconsciously. When confronted with information that creates a threat response, the unconscious can use the threat response to detect deceptive cues and to unconsciously infer deception, all the while keeping this information out of the conscious mind. The account suggests this is beneficial because conscious awareness of the deception “could impel the perceiver to confront the liar” (p. 580). The account is controversial insofar as it claims that people can detect deception, in contrast to past work showing otherwise (47{\%} detection rate of lies, and 61{\%} of truths, resulting from bias to judge statements as true: Bond & DePaulo, 2006), and also makes novel claims about an unconscious ability. Although it is welcoming to see new theoretical approaches to lie detection, the account (a) makes claims that do not match the data and conclusions presented in the studies cited to build its case, (b) offers no testable definition of unconscious processes, and (c) contains internal contradictions.",
keywords = "lie detection, unconscious, tipping point, indirect lie detection, unconscious lie detection, unconscious thought theory, deception detection",
author = "Chris Street and Vadillo, {Miguel A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "13",
doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01789",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "Frontiers in Cognitive Science",

}

Commentary: Can ordinary people detect deception after all? / Street, Chris; Vadillo, Miguel A.

In: Frontiers in Cognitive Science, Vol. 8, 1789, 13.10.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Commentary: Can ordinary people detect deception after all?

AU - Street, Chris

AU - Vadillo, Miguel A.

PY - 2017/10/13

Y1 - 2017/10/13

N2 - No one likes to call someone a liar. But the authors of the tipping point account (ten Brinke, Vohs, & Carney, 2016) claim that it is evolutionary prudent to spot lies that can harm us in order to determine who to trust. As such, they propose the reputational costs of confronting a liar might be overcome by detecting lies unconsciously. When confronted with information that creates a threat response, the unconscious can use the threat response to detect deceptive cues and to unconsciously infer deception, all the while keeping this information out of the conscious mind. The account suggests this is beneficial because conscious awareness of the deception “could impel the perceiver to confront the liar” (p. 580). The account is controversial insofar as it claims that people can detect deception, in contrast to past work showing otherwise (47% detection rate of lies, and 61% of truths, resulting from bias to judge statements as true: Bond & DePaulo, 2006), and also makes novel claims about an unconscious ability. Although it is welcoming to see new theoretical approaches to lie detection, the account (a) makes claims that do not match the data and conclusions presented in the studies cited to build its case, (b) offers no testable definition of unconscious processes, and (c) contains internal contradictions.

AB - No one likes to call someone a liar. But the authors of the tipping point account (ten Brinke, Vohs, & Carney, 2016) claim that it is evolutionary prudent to spot lies that can harm us in order to determine who to trust. As such, they propose the reputational costs of confronting a liar might be overcome by detecting lies unconsciously. When confronted with information that creates a threat response, the unconscious can use the threat response to detect deceptive cues and to unconsciously infer deception, all the while keeping this information out of the conscious mind. The account suggests this is beneficial because conscious awareness of the deception “could impel the perceiver to confront the liar” (p. 580). The account is controversial insofar as it claims that people can detect deception, in contrast to past work showing otherwise (47% detection rate of lies, and 61% of truths, resulting from bias to judge statements as true: Bond & DePaulo, 2006), and also makes novel claims about an unconscious ability. Although it is welcoming to see new theoretical approaches to lie detection, the account (a) makes claims that do not match the data and conclusions presented in the studies cited to build its case, (b) offers no testable definition of unconscious processes, and (c) contains internal contradictions.

KW - lie detection

KW - unconscious

KW - tipping point

KW - indirect lie detection

KW - unconscious lie detection

KW - unconscious thought theory

KW - deception detection

U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01789

DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01789

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 8

JO - Frontiers in Cognitive Science

T2 - Frontiers in Cognitive Science

JF - Frontiers in Cognitive Science

M1 - 1789

ER -