Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration … or is it? An investigation of the impact of motivation and feedback on deception detection

Stephen Porter · Sean Esteban McCabe · Michael Woodworth · Kristine A. Peace

56 citations0/0 files storedLegal and Criminological Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Deception detection and forensic psychology Misinformation and Its Impacts Jury Decision Making Processes

Abstract

Purpose . Although most people perform around the level of chance in making credibility judgments, some researchers have hypothesized that high motivation and the provision of accurate feedback could lead to a higher accuracy rate. This study examined the influence of these factors on judgment accuracy and whether any improvement following feedback was related to social facilitation, a gradual incorporation of successful assessment strategies, or a re‐evaluation of ‘tunnel vision’ decision‐making. Methods . Participants ( N = 151) were randomly assigned to conditions according to motivation level (high/low) and feedback (accurate, inaccurate or none). They then judged the credibility of 12 videotaped speakers either lying or telling the truth about a personal experience. Results . Highly motivated observers performed less accurately ( M = 46.0%), but more confidently, than those in the low‐motivation condition ( M = 60.0%). Although there was no main effect of feedback, the provision of any feedback (accurate or inaccurate) served to diminish the motivational impairment effect. Further, high motivation was associated with a relatively low ‘hit’ rate and high ‘false‐alarm’ rate. This suggested that in the absence of feedback the judgments of highly motivated participants were made through tunnel vision. Conclusions . The results suggest that it is important for lie‐catchers to monitor their motivation level to ensure that over‐enthusiasm is not clouding their judgments. It may be useful for professionals engaged in deception detection to regularly discuss their judgments with colleagues as a form of feedback in order to re‐evaluate their own decision‐making strategies.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 56 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Cues to deception.2006Accuracy of Deception Judgments 1991Who can catch a liar?2000Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice 2001Detecting lies and deceit: the psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice 2002"He's guilty!": Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception.2003The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: A meta-analytic review.2004Detecting True Lies: Police Officers' Ability to Detect Suspects' Lies.

Cited by

2010Dangerous decisions: the impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability 2012“You can't kid a kidder”: association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task 2012Will get fooled again: Emotionally intelligent people are easily duped by high‐stakes deceivers 2007See no lies, hear no lies: differences in discrimination accuracy and response bias when watching or listening to police suspect interviews 2016

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.