The results revealed the first ever demonstration of what kinds of people are likely to be good lie detectors: those who are good liars. Interestingly, and in line with what past research has established, participants took significantly less time to start speaking when they were telling the truth than when they were lying. In particular, when lying, participants started speaking after an average of 6.5 seconds. When telling the truth, participants began speaking after an average of 4.6 seconds. The researchers also had IQ and emotional intelligence scores for each of the participants, but neither of these measures were related to lying or lie detection abilities.
Though this research is primarily about deception, it also speaks to a body of work showing that the way in which the brain and mind represent other people is remarkably similar to the way in which the self is represented. For example, when seeing someone else experience emotion, people will respond to tasks as if they were feeling that emotion themselves. Similarly, other work shows that if you twitch your finger, it enhances your ability to perceive someone else twitch their finger in the same way. That deception and deception detection abilities are associated seems to point to a similar conclusion – the representation of self and the representation of other must bear some striking similarities.
Though this study features a more realistic experimental setting than many previous investigations of deception, there are still some shortcomings of the study that deserve to be addressed in future work. First, the requirement of stringent experimental control meant that participants were explicitly instructed when to lie. However, the authors do point out that there are many instances in which individuals are either explicitly instructed to lie (for example, by a boss or parent), or are compelled to lie by the situation. Just think of the last time someone asked you if their new, awful haircut looked nice, and it’s easy to see how we are often forced to lie for one reason or another.
Also, as this is a correlational study, the reason for the association between lying and lie detection abilities remains unknown. While the authors suggest that one likely explanation is that both of these abilities draw on theory of mind and executive functioning, other hypotheses could also be reasonably entertained, and future work should be able to falsify those hypotheses which are not actually true.
This is the first example effectively showing who is likely to be a good liar. Specifically, those who are also good at lie detection. This is an important demonstration of a phenomenon with which our culture is justifiably fascinated. Lying, whether from a politician, an athlete, a poker player, or a frog is an important determinant of who wins and loses. Elections, court cases, card games, and the ability to reproduce all rely on lying and lie detection abilities. With such high stakes, it’s no wonder that we spend so much time trying to figure out who is bluffing and who isn’t. Given these findings, perhaps we can begin to be just a little more accurate.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentWhen I need to detect a lie, I relay on the anomolies or behavior differences in a person that doesn't seem natural to them. Like it says above, a deception needs extra time for answering (or at least a quick wit-then you'd probably see extra talking becuse they'd have to think while talking until they beleive you beleive them)Whereas when a person's stating the truth, there's nothing else to think about so it will be less time. . and words. Anyway, any honest person can understand things like this. For me, in a search for truth so I will know where the other person is coming from and can respond appropriately, I need to realize their lie in order to repond more truthfully. So MY motivation to perceive lies is so I can act more honestly. When I beleive a lie, I would respond untruthful. Wheras a habitual lier may not care wheather your telling a lie or not as long as you look like your believing THEM. Anyway, the truth(of another's lie) sets me free. . . to know and tell the truth. So I don't NEED to be a lier to know another person is lying. On the other hand, I won't always tell them I know this right away either. Sometimes its better if I pretend not to know "their truth" if it will keep them from further lying still.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just plain poppycock! As well, it may behoove the author to hire a proof reader next time to review his article for errors - I counted three on the first page alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe credibility of any information put forth is questionable when it includes glaring grammatical and spelling errors. This article is just another shining example of the disturbing trend that prevails throughout Scientific American's articles these days; all the way across the board. Gone are the articles containing true & valid intellectual content; along with the gentlemen who contributed them. I can't help but think that all of their articles are now written by people they pulled off the street and threw behind a desk that is equipped with an out-of-date set of encyclopedias. And, some of the content is so glaringly incorrect that it clearly must not matter to those in charge, how evident it is.
A high school mate, son of a psychiatrist, told me that all aristocrats were chronic schizophrenics. As in some places the diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychopathic personality are somehow mixed, you can't be surprised to find people with peculiar personality traits in positions of power, as a person with such a personality is in a better situation to detect psychopaths and predict their behavior, and this can help in preventing uncontrolled psychopaths to harm innocents or many members of a society. Anyway, the statement seems never having been studied or proved in the real life, even more as "aristocrats" are today some kind of a persecuted minority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like the article. I think liars know how to detect lies better than not-so-often-liars, is because they know what to look for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLying/deception is a form of art, and the artist knows the details of his craft.