Hillary C. Shulman

The Impact of Lie to Me on Viewers’ Actual Ability to Detect Deception

The new television series Lie to Me portrays a social scientist solving crimes through his ability to read nonverbal communication. Promotional materials claim the content is based on actual science. Participants (N = 108) watched an episode of Lie to Me, a different drama, or no program and then judged a series of honest and deceptive interviews. Lie to Me viewers were no better at distinguishing truths from lies but were more likely than control participants to misidentify honest interviewees as deceptive. Watching Lie to Me decreases truth bias thereby increasing suspicion of others while at the same time reducing deception detection ability.

Social Ostracism in Task Groups: The Effects of Group Composition

Social ostracism—being ignored or excluded—threatens needs for self-esteem, belongingness, control, and meaningful existence. In the conventional laboratory paradigms, a lone participant is ostracized by either confederates or imagined group members and then completes measures of threatened needs. This approach prohibits asking questions about the group dynamics involved in ostracism situations, such as conditions under which sources of ostracism choose to ignore targets and the communication between them. This new paradigm for studying social ostracism uses unstructured group discussions in which an uninformed member is ignored. In an experiment using three-person, mixed-gender groups, we found that the psychological threat associated with being ignored during group discussion depended on the group’s composition. Being a target of ostracism hurt more when the pair of sources included one in-group (same sex) and one out-group (opposite sex) member compared with when both sources belonged to the out-group (opposite sex).

Assessing Deception Detection Accuracy with Dichotomous Truth–Lie Judgments and Continuous Scaling: Are People Really More Accurate When Honesty Is Scaled?

Deception detection experiments consistently find that people are only slightly better than chance at distinguishing truths from lies. Interpersonal deception theory research, however, claims that people can accurately detect deception when honesty is assessed with continuous scaling. This article reports an experiment (N = 140) directly testing if the type of measurement meaningfully impacts accuracy results and conclusions. The findings suggest that the difference is largely illusory, and that the differences that are observed are attributable to differential variances in the measures. Substantively, both methods yield similar conclusions including slightly better-than-chance accuracy, persistent truth bias, and a robust veracity effect.