The Distrusted Truth: Examination of Challenged Perceptions and Expectations
Eitan Elaad*
Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2015.65054   PDF   HTML   XML   2,811 Downloads   3,704 Views   Citations


Three experiments were designed to investigate various aspects of the distrusted truth. In the first experiment, 60 undergraduate students were asked to self-assess their abilities to tell and detect lies, tell truths and trust others. The truth-telling ability was self-assessed higher than all four abilities. Participants further evaluated the importance of the four abilities. The ability to tell the truth convincingly was evaluated as very important. In the second experiment 80 undergraduate students reported that their feelings would be severely hurt if other people question their truthful messages. The third experiment put these attitudes to a test when 60 undergraduate students took part in a truth telling task in which the four judges presumed deception. After each session participants received either a confirming feedback indicating that they were convincing when they told the truth, a challenging feedback indicating that they failed to convince, or no feedback. It turned out that feedback did not affect participants’ subsequent self-assessed truth telling ability. However, predicted success in delivering convincing truths declined when the challenging feedback was introduced. Results were discussed with reference to situations where the perceived ability to tell the truth convincingly may be challenged.

Share and Cite:

Elaad, E. (2015). The Distrusted Truth: Examination of Challenged Perceptions and Expectations. Psychology, 6, 560-571. doi: 10.4236/psych.2015.65054.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of Deception Judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.
[2] Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal Deception Theory. Communication Theory, 3, 203-242.
[3] DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118.
[4] Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991).Who Can Catch a Liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.
[5] Elaad, E. (2003). Effects of Feedback on the Overestimated Capacity to Detect Lies and the Underestimated Ability to Tell Lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 349-363.
[6] Elaad, E. (2009). Lie-Detection Biases among Male Police Investigators, Prisoners, and Laypersons. Psychological Reports, 105, 1047-1056.
[7] Elaad, E. (2011). Effects of Feedback on Self-Assessed and Actual Abilities to Tell Lies. In: A. E. Hasselm (Ed.), Crime: Causes, Types and Victims (pp. 155-166). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
[8] Elaad, E., Lavy, S., Cohenca, D., Berholz, E., Thee, P., & Ben-Gigi, Y. (2012). Lies, Truths, and Attachment Orientations in Late Adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 670-673.
[9] Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. (1998). The Illusion of Transparency: Biased Assessments of Others’ Ability to Read One’s Emotional States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332-346.
[10] Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A New Theoretical Perspective on Deception Detection: On the Psychology of Instrumental Mind-Reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 189-200.
[11] Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated Interrogations: Verbal and Nonverbal Cues to Deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243-257.
[12] Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Jonsson, A. C. (2003). Partners in Crime: How Liars in Collusion Betray Themselves. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 848-867.
[13] Kaplar, M. E., & Gordon, A. K. (2004). The Enigma of Altruistic Lying: Perspective Differences in What Motivates and Justifies Lie Telling within Romantic Relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 489-507.
[14] Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the Psychology of Confessions. American Psychologist, 60, 215-228.
[15] Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why People Waive Their Miranda Rights: The Power of Innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211-221.
[16] Kassin, S. M., Bogart, D., & Kerner, J. (2012). Confessions That Corrupt: Evidence from the DNA Exoneration Case Files. Psychological Science, 23, 41-45.
[17] Kenny, D. A. (1996). The Design and Analysis of Social-Interaction Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 59-86.
[18] Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s Guilty!”: Investigator bias in Judgments of Truth and Deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.
[19] Miller, G. R., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Deceptive Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[20] Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002). How People Really Detect Lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144-157.
[21] Reinhard, M. A., Scharmach, M., & Muller, P. (2013). It’s Not What You Are, It’s What You Know: Experience, Beliefs, and the Detection of Deception in Employment Interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 467-479.
[22] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
[23] Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
[24] Williams, E. F., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Do People Really Believe They Are above Average? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1121-1128.

Copyright © 2023 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.