Nature of the Deception Evaluation
Professionals within occupations concerned with deception detection often believe that some individuals are better at detecting lies then others. Australian customs officers note that specific individuals always have the highest rate of contraband recovery, police organizations always use the same individuals to train officers in interrogation, and some professional poker players are clearly better at reading deception then others (Frank & Ekman, 1997).
Empirical research regarding the success of individual deception judgements have been mixed. A study by Kraut (1978) suggested that it is the situation, not the evaluator, that is predictive of deception judgements, stating that there was no relationship between a deception judges ability across different deceivers. However, Frank and Ekman (1997) questions these findings reporting the presence of a number of methodological concerns within the study. Meanwhile, other studies have shown individual judges consistently obtaining deception judgements success rates as high as 80%, while other test subjects were consistently below rates expected by chance (Vrij, 1994). Frank and Ekman (1997) compared the predictive success of subjects with left-hemisphere brain damage to an undamaged control population. Left-hemisphere brain damage prevents the ability to process verbal information. The brain damaged subjects, who could only process non-verbal information, significantly outperformed, regarding deception judgements, the non-damaged controls. Overall, research appears to support the anecdotal beliefs that some individuals are better lie detectors than others.
Training. Since some individuals clearly outperform others regarding deception evaluations, one could assume that an individual who acquires those characteristics or skills present in the successful evaluator will subsequently improve their deception evaluations. Zuckerman, Koestner, and Alton (1984) questions whether these skills are best acquired by practice or training. It has been stated that improvement requires advanced concept formation, and therefor behavioral cues must be consistently distinguished by both training and practice via application of the learned techniques (Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979).
Research on the success of lie detection training has been encouraging, with detection rates consistently above 70%, and even in one study of real world experts reaching a predictive success rate over 90% (DePaulo, 1992; deTurck & Miller, 1990; Horvath, Jayne, & Buckley, 1993; Zuckerman, Koestner, & Alton, 1984). One encouraging study noted that the effect of training on the detection of deception in subjects considered masterful deceivers was significantly improved (deTurck & Miller, 1990).
The practicing of learned lie detection techniques with feedback regarding success or failure of judgements, along with information regarding the nature of these success for failures, has been shown to increase predictive success beyond training alone (deTurck & Miller, 1990; Vrij, 1994). It is believed that feedback allows subjects to learn individually which cues from their training are the most salient to them (deTurck & Miller, 1990).
