A comparison of the effectiveness of two types of deceit detection training methods in older adults
- PMID: 31332602
- PMCID: PMC6646507
- DOI: 10.1186/s41235-019-0178-z
A comparison of the effectiveness of two types of deceit detection training methods in older adults
Abstract
Background: In general, people are poor at detecting deception. Older adults are even worse than young adults at detecting deceit, which might make them uniquely vulnerable to certain types of financial fraud. One reason for poor deceit detection abilities is that lay theories of cues to deception are not valid. This study compared the effectiveness of two training methods to improve deceit detection among older adults: valid facial cues versus valid verbal cues to deception. Approximately 150 older adults were randomly assigned to facial training, verbal training, or a control condition. Participants completed a pre-test deceit detection task, their assigned training, and a post-test deceit detection task.
Results: Both training groups significantly improved at recognizing their respectively trained cues after training. However, the facial cue training group were less accurate at detecting deception post-test compared to pre-test and the control group exhibited improved accuracy of deceit detection from pre-test to post-test.
Conclusions: These results are consistent with the body of literature on deception suggesting people hover around chance accuracy, even after training. Older adults' facial and verbal cue recognition can be improved with training, but these improvements did not translate into more accurate deceit detection, and actually hampered performance in the facial condition. Older adults showed the most benefit from sheer practice at detecting deception (in the control condition), perhaps because this condition encouraged implicit rather than explicit judgments of deception.
Keywords: Aging; Deceit detection; Emotion recognition; Training; Verbal cues.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Challenges older adults face in detecting deceit: the role of emotion recognition.Psychol Aging. 2008 Mar;23(1):24-32. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.23.1.24. Psychol Aging. 2008. PMID: 18361651
-
Truth, lies, and videotape: an investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception.Law Hum Behav. 2000 Dec;24(6):643-58. doi: 10.1023/a:1005500219657. Law Hum Behav. 2000. PMID: 11105477 Clinical Trial.
-
Veracity judgement, not accuracy: Reconsidering the role of facial expressions, empathy, and emotion recognition training on deception detection.Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2021 May;74(5):910-927. doi: 10.1177/1747021820978851. Epub 2020 Dec 17. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2021. PMID: 33234008 Free PMC article.
-
Reading Lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception.Annu Rev Psychol. 2019 Jan 4;70:295-317. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019. PMID: 30609913 Review.
-
Lessons From Pinocchio: Cues to Deception May Be Highly Exaggerated.Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Jul;14(4):646-671. doi: 10.1177/1745691619838258. Epub 2019 Jun 7. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019. PMID: 31173537 Review.
Cited by
-
Measuring the Candidates' Emotions in Political Debates Based on Facial Expression Recognition Techniques.Front Psychol. 2022 May 9;13:785453. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.785453. eCollection 2022. Front Psychol. 2022. PMID: 35615169 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Ambady N. The perils of pondering: intuition and thin slice judgments. Psychological Inquiry. 2010;21(4):271–278. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.524882. - DOI
-
- Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In P. Z. Mark (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (vol. 32, pp. 201–271). San Diego, Academic Press.
-
- Blanch-Hartigan D, Andrzejewski SA, Hill KM. The effectiveness of training to improve person perception accuracy: a meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2012;34(6):483–498. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2012.728122. - DOI
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources