Share This Article:

Calibration Methods of Deception Detection

Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:3888KB) PP. 2138-2146
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2014.519216    2,937 Downloads   3,304 Views  


A sample of judges with different ages (children, young adults and adults) as well as a sample of actors (young adults) was required to participate in a deception detection study. Judges were required to evaluate 16 videos where a person might be lying or not lying about a video content. The study sought to look over three aspects of judges’ accuracy judgments related to deception detection (discrimination, calibration and global error) by using calibration graphs. Results showed that some children outperformed adults by better estimating the probabilities of being deceived but they performed the same as both adult groups at discriminating those actors who lied from those who did not lie. It is argued that since children have not been sufficiently exposed to cultural factors related to deceiving behavior, they have better calibration judgment. Implications to detection deception research are discussed in the paper.

Cite this paper

Castro, C. , Lopez, E. & Morales, G. (2014). Calibration Methods of Deception Detection. Psychology, 5, 2138-2146. doi: 10.4236/psych.2014.519216.


[1] Blandon-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Lindsay, S. D., & Hagan, L. (2009). Criteria-Based Content Analysis of True and Suggested Accounts of Events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 901-917.
[2] Bond Jr., C., & De Paulo, B. (2006). Accuracy of Deception Judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.
[3] Burgoon, J., Stoner, G., Bonito, J., & Dunbar, N. (2003). Trust and Deception in Mediated Communication. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Maui, USA.
[4] Caso, L., Gnisci, A., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2005). Processes Underlying Deception: An Empirical Analysis of Truth and Lies When Manipulating the Stakes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 195-202.
[5] Castro, C. Morales, G., & Lopez, E. (2012). Cognitive Algebra to Deception Detection: Information Integration Theory Contributions to Study Human Deception Detection’s Cognitive Nature. International Journal of Psychology Research, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 7. 1-11. ISSN: 1932-6092.
[6] DePaulo, B., Lindsay, J., Malone, B., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-112.
[7] Elfenbein, H., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the Universality and Cultural Specificity of Emotion Recognition: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 203-235.
[8] Elkins, D., Derrick, A., & Gariup, M. (2012). The Voice and Eye Gaze Behavior of an Imposter: Automated Interviewing and Detection for Rapid Screening at the Border. European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Avignon, France.
[9] Farquhar, M. (2005). A Treasury of Deception. New York: Penguin Books.
[10] Fu, C. H., Williams, S. C., Brammer, M. J., Suckling, J., Kim, J., Cleare, A. J., Walsh, N. D., Mitterschiffthaler, M. T., Andrew, C. M., Pich, E. M., & Bullmore, E. T. (2007) Neural Responses to Happy Facial Expressions in Major Depression Following Antidepressant Treatment. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 599-602.
[11] Gokhman, S., Hancock, J., Prabhu, P., Ott, M., & Cardie, C. (2012). In Search of a Gold Standard in Studies of Deception. Proceedings of the EACL 2012 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Deception Detection, Avignon, 23-27 April 2012.
[12] Hancock, J., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and Design: The Impact of Communication Technologies on Lying Behavior. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction, Vienna, 24-29 April 2004, 130-136.
[13] Hauch, V., Blandon-Gitlin, I., Massip, J., & Sporer, S. (2012). Linguistic Cues to Deception Assessed by Computer Programs: A Meta-Analysis. Proceedings of the Workshop “Deception Detection” of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, 23-27 April 2012.
[14] Levine, T., Feeley, T., McCornack, S., Harms, C., & Hughes, M. (2005). Testing the Effects of Nonverbal Training on Deception Detection Accuracy with the Inclusion of a Bogus Train Control Group. Western Journal of Communication, 69, Article ID: 203218.
[15] Rachelle, M., Smith, R., & LaFreniere, P. (2013). Development of Tactical Deception from 4 to 8 Years of Age. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 30-41.
[16] Rogers, R., Boals, A., & Drogin, E. (2011). Applying Cognitive Models of Deception to National Security Investigations: Considerations of Psychological Research, Law, and Ethical Practice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 39, 339-364.
[17] Rotenberg, K., & Sullivan, C. (2003). Children’s Use of Gaze and Limb Movement Cues to Infer Deception. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 175-187.
[18] Senter, S., & Dollins, A. (2003). New Decision Rule Development: Exploration of a Two-Stage Approach. Fort Jackson, SC: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
[19] Slessor, G., Phillips, L., Ruffman, T., Bailey, P., & Insch, P. (2014). Exploring Own-Age Biases in Deception Detection. Cognition and Emotion, 28, 493-506.
[20] Sweeney, C., & Ceci, S. (2014). Deception Detection, Transmission, & Modality in Age & Sex. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-10.
[21] Trovillo, P. (1939) History of Lie Detection. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 30, 848-881.
[22] Webb, J. (2006). Creating A New Reality: Information Age Effects on the Deception Process. Ph.D. Thesis, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Air University.
[23] Yates, F. (1990). Judgment and Decision Making. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2017 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.