Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 429–439 | Cite as

Miami University deception detection database

  • E. Paige LloydEmail author
  • Jason C. Deska
  • Kurt Hugenberg
  • Allen R. McConnell
  • Brandon T. Humphrey
  • Jonathan W. Kunstman
Article

Abstract

In the present work, we introduce the Miami University Deception Detection Database (MU3D), a free resource containing 320 videos of target individuals telling truths and lies. Eighty (20 Black female, 20 Black male, 20 White female, and 20 White male) different targets were recorded speaking honestly and dishonestly about their social relationships. Each target generated four different videos (i.e., positive truth, negative truth, positive lie, negative lie), yielding 320 videos fully crossing target race, target gender, statement valence, and statement veracity. These videos were transcribed by trained research assistants and evaluated by naïve raters. Descriptive analyses of the video characteristics (e.g., length) and subjective ratings (e.g., target attractiveness) are provided. The stimuli and an information codebook can be accessed free of charge for academic research purposes from http://hdl.handle.net/2374.MIA/6067. The MU3D offers scholars the ability to conduct research using standardized stimuli that can aid in building more comprehensive theories of interpersonal sensitivity, enhance replication among labs, facilitate the use of signal detection analyses, and promote consideration of race, gender, and their interactive effects in deception detection research.

Keywords

Stimulus set Video database Lie detection 

References

  1. Albrechtsen, J. S., Meissner, C. A., & Susa, K. J. (2009). Can intuition improve deception detection performance?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1052–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals of interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H. (2016). Strong, but wrong: Lay people’s and police officers’ beliefs about verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. PLoS ONE, 11, e0156615.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477–492.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bond, C. F., Omar, A., Mahmoud, A., & Bonser, R. N. (1990). Lie detection across cultures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ten Brinke, L., & Porter, S. (2012). Cry me a river: Identifying the behavioral consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 469–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1713–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DePaulo, B. M., & Tang, J. (1994). Social anxiety and social judgment: The example of detecting deception. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 203–235.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, J. R., Michael, S. W., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). Validating a new assessment method for deception detection: Introducing a psychologically based credibility assessment tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1429–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray, H. M., Mendes, W. B., & Denny-Brown, C. (2008). An in-group advantage in detecting intergroup anxiety. Psychological Science, 19, 1233–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Hugenberg, K., Young, S. G., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2010). The categorization–individuation model: An integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychological Review, 117, 1168–1187.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kircher, J. C., Horowitz, S. W., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kunstman, J. W., Tuscherer, T., Trawalter, S., & Lloyd, E. P. (2016). What lies beneath? Minority group members’ suspicion of Whites’ egalitarian motivation predicts responses to Whites’ smiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1193–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leal, S., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2010). Detecting true and false opinions: The Devil’s Advocate approach as a lie detection aid. Acta Psychologica, 134, 323–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levine, T. R. (2007). NSF funded cheating tape interviews. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  26. Levine, T. R. (2018). Ecological validity and deception detection research design. Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 45–54.Google Scholar
  27. Levine, T. R., Blair, J. P., & Clare, D. D. (2014). Diagnostic utility: Experimental demonstrations and replications of powerful question effects in high-stakes deception detection. Human Communication Research, 40, 262–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levine, T. R., Clare, D. D., Blair, J. P., McCornack, S., Morrison, K., & Park, H. S. (2014). Expertise in deception detection involves actively prompting diagnostic information rather than passive behavioral observation. Human Communication Research, 40, 442–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., ... Lee, J. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377–403.Google Scholar
  31. Levine, T. R., Shaw, A., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). Increasing deception detection accuracy with strategic questioning. Human Communication Research, 36, 216–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levine, T. R., Shulman, H. C., Carpenter, C. J., DeAndrea, D. C., & Blair, J. P. (2013). The impact of accusatory, non-accusatory, bait, and false evidence questioning on deception detection. Communication Research Reports, 30, 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago Face Database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122–1135.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.1.185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the Implicit Association Test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates (www.LIWC.net).Google Scholar
  40. Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Porter, S., Yuille, J. C., & Lehman, D. R. (1999). The nature of real, implanted, and fabricated memories for emotional childhood events: Implications for the recovered memory debate. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 517–537.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022344128649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shoda, T. M., & McConnell, A. R. (2013). Interpersonal sensitivity and self-knowledge: Those chronic for trustworthiness are more accurate at detecting it in others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 440–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less travelled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. ten Brinke, L., Stimson, D., & Carney, D. R. (2014). Some evidence for unconscious lie detection. Psychological Science, 25, 1098–1105.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verplaetse, J., Vanneste, S., & Braeckman, J. (2007). You can judge a book by its cover: The sequel. A kernel of truth in predictive cheating detection. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Paige Lloyd
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jason C. Deska
    • 2
  • Kurt Hugenberg
    • 3
  • Allen R. McConnell
    • 4
  • Brandon T. Humphrey
    • 4
  • Jonathan W. Kunstman
    • 4
  1. 1.University of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  4. 4.Miami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations