{"id":14228,"date":"2022-09-20T13:30:30","date_gmt":"2022-09-20T17:30:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/?p=14228"},"modified":"2025-09-05T14:15:39","modified_gmt":"2025-09-05T20:15:39","slug":"key-scientific-paper-redux-who-can-best-catch-a-liar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/2022\/09\/20\/key-scientific-paper-redux-who-can-best-catch-a-liar\/","title":{"rendered":"Key Scientific Paper Redux \u2013 Who can best catch a liar?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Here is the latest in our series of articles entitled,\u00a0Key Scientific Paper Redux. This time out we examine Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception.<\/em>[i]<\/a>\u00a0This key paper addresses one of the issues raised by so many who believe the\u00a0pan-cultural fictions about how deception ought best to be detected<\/a>, as well as the idea that \u201cprofessionals\u201d are better at it than lay-people.<\/span><\/p>\n

Like other key papers in deception science,\u00a0Who can best catch a liar?<\/em>\u00a0Is a meta-analysis. You may recall from some of our earlier articles in the series that at Deception And Truth Analysis (D.A.T.A.) we prefer meta-analyses. The reason is that we can draw more confident conclusions based on the findings because the sample sizes are so large.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Who can best catch a liar?<\/strong><\/em>: Study Details<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Aamodt synthesized research results from 108 deception judgment studies, covering the deception detection abilities of 16,537 people. Of this number, \u00a0there were 11,647 students (as is typical for social psychology studies), 2,737 non-students, and 2,137 law enforcement professionals. Note: this is a smaller sample than was used in\u00a0Bond and DePaulo<\/a>, but is still gigantic. What makes this analysis unique and why we love it at D.A.T.A. is its examination of possible \u201cstar\u201d deception detectors among professionals, such as law enforcement.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Who can best catch a liar?<\/strong><\/em>: Major Findings<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. People\u2019s overall accuracy in deception-truth judgments = 54.50%. This figure is almost exactly the same as was found in Bond and DePaulo, who found a 54.45% accuracy. Though the studies under examination are not entirely the same.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Students\u2019 deception detection accuracy = 54.22%.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Law enforcement professionals = 53.84%.<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Non-law enforcement adults = 62.33%.<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Professionals deception detection accuracy = 53.84%.<\/span><\/li>\n
  6. People\u2019s confidence in their deception detection accuracy correlated with their actual deception detection accuracy = 5% (!).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    As you can see from the above findings, law-enforcement, whom many consider to be deception detection pros, are actually worse at deception detection than the general population, students, and most interestingly, non-law enforcement adults. The following table contains the pertinent data:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
    \"Professionals'<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>
    Professionals’ Deception Detection Capabilities<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    <\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    Accuracy of Deception Judgments:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Sub-Findings<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. Correlation of age with deception detection = -3%.<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Correlation of \u201cexperience\u201d with deception detection = -8% [experience<\/em>\u00a0is placed in quotes, because as our earlier articles demonstrate, most people, including law enforcement rely on deception detection techniques that do not work.]<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Correlation of education with deception detection = 3%.<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. Among personality characteristics, the only characteristic that shows promise is self-monitoring (metacognitive) behavior, with a correlation of 14%.<\/span><\/li>\n
    5. There is not a significant difference in the abilities of women and men in deception detection.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      <\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Quote of Note<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n

      \u201cThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that such individual differences as age, education, law enforcement experience, confidence, and sex are not related to the ability to detect deception.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      [i]<\/a>Aamodt, Michael G. \u201cWho can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception.\u201d\u00a0The Forensic Examiner<\/em>\u00a0(Spring 2006)<\/span><\/p>\n

      [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Here is the latest in our series of articles entitled,\u00a0Key Scientific Paper Redux. This time out we examine Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception.[i]\u00a0This key paper addresses one of the issues raised by so many who believe the\u00a0pan-cultural fictions about how deception ought best to be detected, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":14229,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"

      \r\n
      \r\n
      \"Key<\/span><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
      Key Scientific Paper Redux: Who can best catch a liar?<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\r\nBy Jason Apollo Voss, CFA<\/span><\/em>\r\n\r\n\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\nHere is the latest in our series of articles entitled,\u00a0Key Scientific Paper Redux. This time out we examine Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception.<\/em>[i]<\/a>\u00a0This key paper addresses one of the issues raised by so many who believe the\u00a0pan-cultural fictions about how deception ought best to be detected<\/a>, as well as the idea that \u201cprofessionals\u201d are better at it than lay-people.<\/span>\r\n\r\nLike other key papers in deception science,\u00a0Who can best catch a liar?<\/em>\u00a0Is a meta-analysis. You may recall from some of our earlier articles in the series that at Deception And Truth Analysis (D.A.T.A.) we prefer meta-analyses. The reason is that we can draw more confident conclusions based on the findings because the sample sizes are so large.<\/span>\r\n\r\nWho can best catch a liar?<\/strong><\/em>: Study Details<\/strong><\/span>\r\n\r\nAamodt synthesized research results from 108 deception judgment studies, covering the deception detection abilities of 16,537 people. Of this number, \u00a0there were 11,647 students (as is typical for social psychology studies), 2,737 non-students, and 2,137 law enforcement professionals. Note: this is a smaller sample than was used in\u00a0Bond and DePaulo<\/a>, but is still gigantic. What makes this analysis unique and why we love it at D.A.T.A. is its examination of possible \u201cstar\u201d deception detectors among professionals, such as law enforcement.<\/span>\r\n\r\nWho can best catch a liar?<\/strong><\/em>: Major Findings<\/strong><\/span>\r\n
        \r\n \t
      1. People\u2019s overall accuracy in deception-truth judgments = 54.50%. This figure is almost exactly the same as was found in Bond and DePaulo, who found a 54.45% accuracy. Though the studies under examination are not entirely the same.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
      2. Students\u2019 deception detection accuracy = 54.22%.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
      3. Law enforcement professionals = 53.84%.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
      4. Non-law enforcement adults = 62.33%.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
      5. Professionals deception detection accuracy = 53.84%.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
      6. People\u2019s confidence in their deception detection accuracy correlated with their actual deception detection accuracy = 5% (!).<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nAs you can see from the above findings, law-enforcement, whom many consider to be deception detection pros, are actually worse at deception detection than the general population, students, and most interestingly, non-law enforcement adults. The following table contains the pertinent data:<\/span>\r\n
        \r\n
        \r\n
        \"Professionals'<\/span><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
        Professionals' Deception Detection Capabilities<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\r\nAccuracy of Deception Judgments:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Sub-Findings<\/strong><\/span>\r\n
          \r\n \t
        1. Correlation of age with deception detection = -3%.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
        2. Correlation of \u201cexperience\u201d with deception detection = -8% [experience<\/em>\u00a0is placed in quotes, because as our earlier articles demonstrate, most people, including law enforcement rely on deception detection techniques that do not work.]<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
        3. Correlation of education with deception detection = 3%.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
        4. Among personality characteristics, the only characteristic that shows promise is self-monitoring (metacognitive) behavior, with a correlation of 14%.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
        5. There is not a significant difference in the abilities of women and men in deception detection.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nQuote of Note<\/strong><\/em><\/span>\r\n\r\n\u201cThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that such individual differences as age, education, law enforcement experience, confidence, and sex are not related to the ability to detect deception.\u201d<\/span>\r\n\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\n[i]<\/a>Aamodt, Michael G. \u201cWho can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception.\u201d\u00a0The Forensic Examiner<\/em>\u00a0(Spring 2006)<\/span>","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3,465],"tags":[444,447,445],"class_list":["post-14228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-blog","category-d-a-t-a","tag-body-language","tag-deception-science","tag-key-scientific-paper-redux"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14228\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14229"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonapollovoss.com\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}