Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting Perceiver and Target Gender Effects in Deception Detection

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Existing research is inconclusive regarding the influence of perceiver gender and target gender on lie detection. Researchers have offered a number of conclusions regarding gender effects in deception detection (e.g., women are better at lie detection than men, participant and target gender interact in predicting deception detection accuracy, there are no gender effects in deception detection). In the current work, we revisit the question of whether and how gender influences lie detection, employing a large database of controlled stimuli, a large sample size, and the analytical advantages provided by signal detection theory. Participants viewed videos of male and female targets telling truths and lies about interpersonal relationships, and after each video, they rendered a truth or lie judgment. Female targets were easier to “read” (i.e., greater sensitivity) and were called liars more frequently than male targets. No effects of participant gender were observed. This work sheds light on an important issue in the lie detection literature (i.e., does gender matter?), and it identifies important considerations for understanding gender biases and cross-gender social interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data collection for this project was conducted contemporaneously with pretesting for the Miami University Deception Detection Database (Lloyd et al. 2018). All stimuli, data, and codebook can be freely accessed by researchers via http://hdl.handle.net/2374.MIA/6067 after requesting an access code from the corresponding author.

References

  • Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? Forensic Examiner, 15, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrechtsen, J. S., Meissner, C. A., & Susa, K. J. (2009). Can intuition improve deception detection performance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1052–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 212–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J., Fiedler, K., et al. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belot, M., Bhaskar, V., & van de Ven, J. (2010). Promises and cooperation: Evidence from a TV game show. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73, 396–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Omar, A., Mahmoud, A., & Bonser, R. N. (1990). Lie detection across cultures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, L. R. (2000). The socialization of gender differences in emotional expression: Display rules, infant temperament, and differentiation. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 24–47). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carton, J. S., Kessler, E. A., & Pape, C. L. (1999). Nonverbal decoding skills and relationship well-being in adults. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Census Bureau (2015). American Community Survey (ACS). Accessed via https://datausa.io/profile/soc/333050/#demographics.

  • Chaplin, T. M., & Aldao, A. (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 735–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1713–1722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Telling ingratiating lies: Effects of target sex and target attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1191–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Tang, J. (1994). Social anxiety and social judgment: The example of detecting deception. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 142–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deTurck, M. A. (1991). Training observers to detect spontaneous deception: Effects of gender. Communication Reports, 4, 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ein-Dor, T., Perry-Paldi, A., Daniely, T., Zohar-Cohen, K., & Hirschberger, G. (2016). Deciphering the riddle of human deceit detection: Groups comprising a higher number of anxious people are better at distinguishing lies from truths. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22, 945–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ein-Dor, T., Perry-Paldi, A., Zohar-Cohen, K., Efrati, Y., & Hirschberger, G. (2017). It takes an insecure liar to catch a liar: The link between attachment insecurity, deception, and detection of deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 4, 913–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay, P. J., & Middleton, W. C. (1941). The ability to judge truth-telling or lying from the voice as transmitted over a public address system. Journal of General Psychology, 24, 211–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fivush, R. (1989). Exploring sex differences in the emotional content of mother–child conversations about the past. Sex Roles, 20, 675–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, J. A., & Feldman, R. S. (2000). Detecting deception and judge’s involvement: Lower task involvement leads to better lie detection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, J. A., Feldman, R. S., & Tyler, J. M. (2004). When accurate beliefs lead to better lie detection. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 764–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal gender differences: Accuracy of communication & expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Matsumoto, D. (2004). Gender differences in judgments of multiple emotions from facial expressions. Emotion, 4, 201206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2008). Are women always more interpersonally sensitive than men? Impact of goals and content domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 144–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, T. G., & Smith, J. L. (2006). Interpersonal reasons for interpersonal perceptions: Gender-incongruent purpose goals and nonverbal judgment accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect”. Communications Monographs, 66, 125–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26, 1827–1832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. P., Deska, J. C., Hugenberg, K., McConnell, A. R., Humphrey, B. T., & Kunstman, J. W. (2018). Miami University deception detection database. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1061-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. P., Hugenberg, K., McConnell, A. R., Kunstman, J. W., & Deska, J. C. (2017). Black and white lies: Race-based biases in deception judgments. Psychological Science, 28, 1125–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, M., Healy, N., & Bruno, D. (2013). It takes one to know one: Relationship between lie detection and psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 676–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A., & Kaplan, H. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCornack, S. A., & Parks, M. R. (1990). What women know that men don’t: Sex differences in determining the truth behind deceptive messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., Campbell, M. A., Stapleton, J., & Birt, A. R. (2002). The influence of judge, target, and stimulus characteristics on the accuracy of detecting deceit. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34, 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., McCabe, S., Woodworth, M., & Peace, K. A. (2007). Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration or is it? An investigation of the impact of motivation and feedback on deception detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhard, M. A., Scharmach, M., & Müller, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosip, J. C., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, and nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sable, M. R., Danis, F., Mauzy, D. L., & Gallagher, S. K. (2006). Barriers to reporting sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. Journal of American College Health, 55, 157–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Williams, S. (2002). Gender, the perception of aggression, and the overestimation of gender bias. Sex Roles, 46, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Brinke, L., Stimson, D., & Carney, D. R. (2014). Some evidence for unconscious lie detection. Psychological Science, 25, 1098–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Darrien Jones for his assistance with this research. Preparation of this manuscript was supported by Miami University Honors College via a Scholarly Activities Grant awarded to the second author and National Science Foundation Grant BCS-1423765 awarded to the third author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Denver, 2155 S. Race St, Denver, CO, 80208, USA

    E. Paige Lloyd & Kevin M. Summers

  2. Indiana University, 1101 E. 10th St., Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Kurt Hugenberg

  3. Miami University, 90 North Patterson Avenue, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Allen R. McConnell

Authors
  1. E. Paige Lloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin M. Summers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kurt Hugenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allen R. McConnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Paige Lloyd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lloyd, E.P., Summers, K.M., Hugenberg, K. et al. Revisiting Perceiver and Target Gender Effects in Deception Detection. J Nonverbal Behav 42, 427–440 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0283-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0283-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation