What makes a good liar? The relationship between cognitive and personality assessments’ and lying ability using traditional and strategic interview approaches

Atkinson, Dominick Joseph, "What makes a good liar? The relationship between cognitive and personality assessments’ and lying ability using traditional and strategic interview approaches" (2019). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 17392. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/17392

ABSTRACT: Over the past several decades, scholars have sought to better understand and refine the process of detecting deception (see Vrij, 2015). However, considerably less research has focused on identifying the characteristics and abilities of effective liars. The purpose of the present project was to begin to examine individual differences in lying ability and identify skills and traits of more successful liars. Participants in this study lied or told the truth under various conditions and then naïve observers judged the veracity of those statements. Overall, participants did not demonstrate good calibration between confidence in their ability and performance on the task. Additionally, some individual difference measures (e.g., working memory capacity, task switching ability, and Machiavellianism) were found to be related to the ability to lie well while others (e.g., inhibitory control, narcissism, and psychopathy) were not. Additionally, good liars were not affected by new strategic interview approaches (e.g., reverse order recall) as performance during control phases of interviews was related to performance during strategic phases. The relationships between confidence, ability, personality traits, cognitive abilities, and strategic interviewing approaches was examined.

Keywords: interview, lying, deception, individual differences



APPENDIX B: MACHIAVELLIANISM PERSONALITY SCALE
Responses are on a 5 point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

1. I believe that lying is necessary to maintain a competitive advantage over others (A)
2. The only good reason to talk to others is to get information that I can use to my own benefit (A)
3. I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed (A)
4. I am willing to sabotage the efforts of other people if they threaten my own goals (A)
5. I would cheat if there was a low chance of getting caught (A)
6. I like to give the orders in interpersonal situations (DC)
7. I enjoy having control over other people (DC)
8. I enjoy being able to control the situation (DC)
9. Status is a good sign of success in life (DS)
10. Accumulating wealth is an important goal for me (DS)
11. I want to be rich and powerful someday (DS)
12. People are only motivated by personal gain (DO)
13. I dislike committing to groups because I don’t trust others (DO)
14. Team members backstab each other all the time to get ahead (DO)
15. If I show any weakness at work, other people will take advantage of it (DO)
16. Other people are always planning ways to take advantage of the situation at my expense (D)

Subscales: A: Amorality, DC: Desire for Control, DS: Desire for Status, DO: Distrust of Others.


APPENDIX C: NARCISSISTIC GRANDIOSITY SCALE Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (Crowe et al. 2016) Rate yourself on the following adjectives on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely)

1. Perfect
2. Extraordinary
3. Superior
4. Heroic
5. Omnipotent
6. Unrivalled
7. Authoritative
8. Glorious
9. Prestigious
10. Acclaimed
11. Prominent
12. High-Status
13. Brilliant
14. Dominant
15. Envied
16. Powerful


APPENDIX D: TRIARCHIC PSYCHOPATHY MEASURE (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009)
This questionnaire contains statements that different people might use to describe themselves. For each statement, select the choice that describes you best. There are no right or wrong answers; just choose the answer that best describes you (Items are responded to on a 4-point Likert scale).

1. I’m optimistic more often than not.
2. How other people feel is important to me.
3. I often act on immediate needs.
4. I have no strong desire to parachute out of an airplane.
5. I’ve often missed things I promised to attend.
6. I would enjoy being in a high-speed chase.
7. I am well equipped to deal with stress.
8. I don’t mind if someone I dislike gets hurt.
9. My impulsive decisions have caused problems with loved ones.
10. I get scared easily.
11. I sympathize with others’ problems.
12. I have missed work without bothering to call in.
13. I’m a born leader.
14. I enjoy of good physical fight.
15. I jump into things without thinking.
16. I have a hard time making things turn out the way that I want.
17. I return insults.
18. I’ve gotten in trouble because I missed too much school.
19. I have a knack for influencing people.
20. It doesn’t bother me to see someone else in pain.
21. I have good control over myself.
22. I function well in new situations, even when unprepared.
23. I enjoy pushing people around sometimes.
24. I have taken money from someone’s purse or wallet without asking.
25. I don’t’ think of myself as talented.
26. I taunt people just to stir things up.
27. People often abuse my trust.
28. I’m afraid of far fewer things than most people.
29. I don’t any point in worrying if what I do hurts someone else.
30. I keep appointments that I make.
31. I often get bored quickly and lose interest.
32. I can get over things that would traumatize others.
33. I am sensitive to the feelings of others.
34. I have conned people to get money from them.
35. It worries me to go into an unfamiliar situation without knowing all the details.
36. I don’t have much sympathy for people.
37. I get in trouble for not considering the consequences of my actions.
38. I can convince people to do what I want.
39. For me, honesty really is the best policy.
40. I’ve injured people to see them in pain.
41. I don’t like to take the lead in groups.
42. I sometimes insult people on purpose to get a reaction from them.
43. I have taken items from a store without paying for them.
44. It’s easy to embarrass me.
45. Things are more fun if a little danger is involved.
46. I have a hard time waiting patiently for things I want.
47. I stay away from physical danger as much as I can.
48. I don’t care much if what I do hurts others.
49. I have lost a friend because of irresponsible things I’ve done.
50. I don’t stack up well against most others.
51. Others have told me they are concerned about my lack of self-control.
52. It’s easy for me to relate to other people’s emotions.
53. I have robbed someone.
54. I never worry about making a fool of myself with others.
55. It doesn’t bother me when people around me are hurting.
56. I have had problems at work because I was irresponsible.
57. I’m not very good at influencing people.
58. I have stolen something out of a vehicle.


APPENDIX G: LIST OF OPINIONS FOR OPINION TASK (from Deeb et al. 2018)

In this next task you will be asked to argue both for an against an opinion that you hold. First, please take a moment to rate how much you agree with the following statements:

1. Women should have the right to have an abortion.
2. Capital punishment (i.e., the death penalty) should be a legal option in judicial systems for serious crimes.
3. CCTV cameras in streets and public areas is a good thing.
4. The US immigration laws should be much tougher for anyone wanting to live in the US.
5. I am firmly atheist (don’t believe in God).
6. Banning smoking in public places is a good thing.
7. Euthanasia should be a lawful option in the terminally ill.
8. Obese people should pay for their own healthcare.
9. It is right that animals are used for experimentation in medical research.
10. Governments should allow polygamy (marriage to more than one spouse).
11. Sex before marriage is morally wrong.
12. Couple should not live together before being married.
13. I support the Democratic Party.
14. Arranged marriages should not be allowed.
15. Telling your children that Santa Claus exists is wrong.
16. I generally agree with Donald Trump’s remarks.
17. I would not mind if the President of my country was female.
18. If is okay for the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to be 18 years.
19. The inclusion policy at schools, wherein children with behavioral problems are kept in mainstream school classrooms, is a good thing.
20. I support the Republican Party.
21. Governments should allow the use of marijuana for personal use.
22. The refugees’ crisis will have an increased negative influence on the United States.

Note: Ratings will be on a 1-7 Likert Scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Cold-blooded women can detect lies with greater accuracy than other women; less empathic women are less affected by emotional contagion and thus may be more able to focus on non-emotional cues

Cold-blooded women can detect lies with greater accuracy than other women. Geoffrey Duran, François-Xavier Cécillon, Thibaut Sansorgné & George A. Michael. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, Volume 30, 2019 - Issue 3, Dec 26 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2018.1560488

ABSTRACT: Lies are notoriously difficult to detect. But it appears that some people are better at accomplishing this task than others even though the factors contributing to deception detection accuracy are not well understood. This study explored the influence of empathy on the detection of deception as a function of the detectors’ gender while dark personality traits were statistically controlled. Eighty men and 80 women were requested to judge whether individuals viewed in videos were giving their true opinion or not on current debatable issues (50% truthful and 50% deceptive narratives). Judges were divided into four groups according to their gender and their degree of empathy, as assessed using the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy. It was found that women with lower levels of empathy distinguished false from true opinions better than women with higher empathy, whereas no such difference was found in men. These results suggest that the degree of empathy in women influences their ability to detect deception and supports recent studies showing that emotional skills negatively affect deception detection ability. We suggest that less empathic women are less affected by emotional contagion and thus may be more able to focus on non-emotional cues that might reveal deception.

KEYWORDS: Empathy, gender, deception detection

Check also Atkinson, Dominick Joseph, "What makes a good liar? The relationship between cognitive and personality assessments’ and lying ability using traditional and strategic interview approaches" (2019). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 17392. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/12/what-makes-good-liar-relationship.html

And Our experiments support the widely documented poor ability of humans to detect lies holds for both self-selected and instructed liars:

Human Lie-Detection Performance: Does Random Assignment versus Self-Selection of Liars and Truth-Tellers Matter? Karl Ask, Sofia Calderon, Erik Mac Giolla. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, December 25 2019. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/12/our-experiments-support-widely.html

And Personality traits of a good liar: A systematic review of the literature. Monica Semrad, Bridie Scott-Parker, Michael Nagel. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 147, 1 September 2019, Pages 306-316. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/05/we-still-have-no-tests-to-determine.html

Our experiments support the widely documented poor ability of humans to detect lies holds for both self-selected and instructed liars

Human Lie-Detection Performance: Does Random Assignment versus Self-Selection of Liars and Truth-Tellers Matter? Karl Ask, Sofia Calderon, Erik Mac Giolla. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, December 25 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.10.002

Deception research has been criticized for its common practice of randomly allocating senders to truth-telling and lying conditions. In this study, we directly compared receivers’ lie-detection accuracy when judging randomly assigned versus self-selected truth-tellers and liars. In a trust-game setting, senders were instructed to lie or tell the truth (random assignment; n = 16) or were allowed to choose to lie or tell the truth of their own accord (self-selection; n = 16). In a sample of receivers (N = 200), we tested two alternative hypotheses, predicting opposite effects of random assignment (vs. self-selection) on receivers’ lie-detection accuracy. Accuracy rates did not differ significantly as a function of veracity assignment, failing to support the claim that random assignment of liars and truth-tellers alters the detectability of deception. Equivalence tests indicated that, while a small effect of random assignment cannot be ruled out, moderate (or larger) effect sizes are unlikely.

Keywords: DeceptionLie detectionRandom assignmentSelf-selectionDetection strategy

General Audience Summary: In everyday communication, people typically decide whether to lie or to tell the truth of their own accord. In most studies on lie detection, however, researchers instruct individuals to lie or tell the truth on a random basis. This approach has received critique from experts in the field, because it does not reflect what happens in real life. Since self-selected and instructed liars and truth-tellers differ in several ways (e.g., motivation, proficiency of lying), the two modes of veracity assignment may give rise to different cues to truth and deception. In the current study, we tested whether random assignment, as compared with self-selection, improves or impairs people's ability to detect deception. Liars and truth-tellers (senders) tried to convince participants (receivers) to trust them with their money, promising cooperation and financial gain in return. Half of the senders had been randomly assigned to lie or tell the truth, whereas the other half had chosen to lie or tell the truth of their own accord. We tested two competing hypotheses: First, on the assumption that it prevents good liars from choosing to lie (and poor liars from choosing not to lie), random assignment would improve receivers’ ability to detect lies. Second, on the assumption that there are detectable differences between senders who are likely to lie when given the opportunity and those unlikely to lie, random assignment would make such differences uninformative and impair receivers’ ability to detect lies. Our results did not support any of the hypotheses (lie-detection accuracy was near chance level in all experimental conditions), thus failing to support the claim that random assignment of liars and truth-tellers alters the detectability of deception. Instead, they indicate that the widely documented poor ability of humans to detect lies holds for both self-selected and instructed liars.

Mandatory conscription for French men: Service increases voter turnout by approximately 7 pct points; we observe no support for a change in preferences of former conscripts

Military Service and Political Behavior: Evidence from France. Etienne Fize, Charles Louis-Sidois. European Economic Review, December 24 2019, 103364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.103364

Abstract: We investigate the impact of compulsory military service on turnout and political preferences. Exploiting the suspension of mandatory conscription for French men, we observe a significant and positive impact of military service on turnout. We estimate that the service increases turnout by approximately 7 percentage points. We also investigate the impact of conscription on political preferences. When we control for selection into the military service, we observe no support for a change in preferences of former conscripts.

Keywords: VotingTurnoutPolitical BehaviorMilitary Service

Those with political attitudes similar to Trump’s showed increased liking of him with exposure to his tweets; opposite for those with dissimilar attitudes; all were unaware that the tweets affected their views

Paravati, E., Naidu, E., Gabriel, S., & Wiedemann, C. (2019). More than just a tweet: The unconscious impact of forming parasocial relationships through social media. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, Dec 2019. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000214

Abstract: Although past work suggests that having a parasocial relationship with a celebrity can affect attitudes toward that celebrity, no work has yet examined if people are consciously aware that this is occurring and if this can explain the effects of Twitter on attitudes about Donald Trump. The current research examined the psychological mechanisms and attitudinal consequences of engaging with Donald Trump on Twitter and the degree to which people were consciously aware of the effects of their parasocial bond on their attitudes. Across an experiment (N = 243) and two correlational studies (N = 373; N = 384), we found that participants with preexisting political attitudes similar to Trump’s showed increased liking of Trump with exposure to his Twitter feed. Those effects were mediated by a parasocial bond. In other words, when people with a political ideology similar to Trump’s read his Twitter feed, they felt like they knew him personally (i.e., formed a parasocial relationship with him), which predicted them liking him even more. Conversely, people with political ideologies not similar to Trump’s liked him less when exposed to his tweets. Importantly, individuals were unaware that engaging with Trump on Twitter was affecting their views of him. Implications for how the unconscious formation of parasocial relationships may affect attitude polarization and political processes in the modern world are discussed.