Personality traits of a good liar: A systematic review of the literature

Is It the Judge, the Sender, or Just the Individual Message? Disentangling Person and Message Effects on Variation in Lie-Detection Judgments

Research suggests that people differ more in their ability to lie than in their ability to detect lies. However, because studies have not treated senders and messages as separate entities, it is unclear whether some senders are generally more transparent than others or whether individual messages differ in their transparency of veracity regardless of senders. Variance attributable to judges, senders, and messages was estimated simultaneously using multiple messages from each sender (totaling more than 45,000 judgments). The claim that the accuracy of a veracity judgment depends on the sender was not supported. Messages differed in their detectability (21% explained variance), but senders did not. Message veracity accounted for most message variation (16.8% of the total variance), but other idiosyncratic message characteristics also contributed significantly. Consistent with the notion that a (mis)match between sender demeanor and veracity determines accuracy, lie and truth detectability differed individually within senders. Judges primarily determined variance in lie-versus-truth classifications (12%) and in confidence (46%) but played no role regarding judgment accuracy (< 0.01%). This work has substantial implications for the design and direction of future research and underscores the importance of separating senders and messages when developing theories and testing derived hypotheses.

Development of a Chinese werewolf deception database

Although it is important to accurately detect deception, limited research in this area has been undertaken involving Asian people. We aim to address this gap by undertaking research regarding the identification of deception in Asians in realistic environments. In this study, we develop a Chinese Werewolf Deception Database (C2W2D), which consists of 168 video clips (84 deception videos and 84 honest videos). A total of 1,738,760 frames of facial data are recorded. Fifty-eight healthy undergraduates (24 men and 34 women) and 26 drug addicts (26 men) participated in a werewolf game. The development of C2W2D is accomplished based on a "werewolf" deception game paradigm in which the participants spontaneously tell the truth or a lie. Two synced high-speed cameras are used to capture the game process. To explore the differences between lying and truth-telling in the database, descriptive statistics (e.g., duration and quantity) and hypothesis tests are conducted using action units (AUs) of facial expressions (e.g., t-test). The C2W2D contributes to a relatively sizable number of deceptive and honest samples with high ecological validity. These samples can be used to study the individual differences and the underlying mechanisms of lies and truth-telling between drug addicts and healthy people.

It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver: Machiavellianism is associated with producing but not necessarily with falling for bullshit

Machiavellianism is a personality trait emphasizing fraud at others' expense. It is yet unclear whether Machiavellianism is also predictive of less obvious deception, for example inaccurate or meaningless information supposed to gain advantages and to avoid disadvantages (i.e., bullshit). Similarly, it is unclear whether those high in Machiavellianism can recognize bullshit claims and valuable information as such (i.e., bullshit sensitivity). In this study, we investigated whether different facets of Machiavellianism are prone to the production of different sorts of bullshit and how these facets of Machiavellianism relate to bullshit sensitivity. In a sample of 525 participants (72% women), we found that the manipulative side of Machiavellianism (Machiavellian approach) was linked to persuasive bullshitting, that is, the production of bullshit intended to gain desired resources. Likewise, the distrustful side of Machiavellianism (Machiavellian avoidance) went along with higher evasive bullshitting, which means spreading information that ought to prevent individual disadvantages. Next, we found that those high in Machiavellian avoidance, but not Machiavellian approach, were better at differentiating information from bullshit. These links were robust irrespective of different levels of cognitive ability. Ultimately, we discussed future directions for research on bullshitting and disseminating deceptive information in general.

Who falls for fake news? Psychological and clinical profiling evidence of fake news consumers

Awareness of the potential psychological significance of false news increased during the coronavirus pandemic, however, its impact on psychopathology and individual differences remains unclear. Acknowledging this, the authors investigated the psychological and psychopathological profiles that characterize fake news consumption. A total of 1452 volunteers from the general population with no previous psychiatric history participated. They responded to clinical psychopathology assessment tests. Respondents solved a fake news screening test, which allowed them to be allocated to a quasi-experimental condition: group 1 (non-fake news consumers) or group 2 (fake news consumers). Mean comparison, Bayesian inference, and multiple regression analyses were applied. Participants with a schizotypal, paranoid, and histrionic personality were ineffective at detecting fake news. They were also more vulnerable to suffer its negative effects. Specifically, they displayed higher levels of anxiety and committed more cognitive biases based on suggestibility and the Barnum Effect. No significant effects on psychotic symptomatology or affective mood states were observed. Corresponding to these outcomes, two clinical and therapeutic recommendations related to the reduction of the Barnum Effect and the reinterpretation of digital media sensationalism were made. The impact of fake news and possible ways of prevention are discussed.

The tangled webs they weave: A scoping review of deception detection and production in relation to Dark Triad traits

People deceive for different reasons, from avoiding interpersonal conflicts to preserving, protecting, and nurturing interpersonal relationships, and to obtaining social status and power. A growing body of research highlights the role of personality in both deception detection and production, with a particular focus on high Dark Triad (DT) traits (Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy), for their shared tendency to engage in unethical self-benefitting behaviors, despite negative consequences for others. The main goal of the current scoping review was to bring together the studies investigating self-reported and performance-based deception production and detection performances, as presented in individuals characterized by high DT traits and point out the possible contribution of DT to deception research. To do so, we identified the relevant studies documenting the similarities and discrepancies between the three personality traits and presented their results, based on the procedure used for deception assessment: subjective or objective measurements for production / detection. Then, we discussed possible explanatory mechanisms for inter-individual differences in lie detection / production and argue for the contribution of DT to deception research beyond the typical personality models, particularly for the antisocial character of deception.

Exploring the relationship between personality, morality and lying: A study based on the person-centred approach

Past research explored the relationship between personality, moral disengagement, and deception and found a general trend showing that the lower people score on the big five personality factors, but the higher they score on moral disengagement and Machiavellianism, the higher their lying tendency. However, a limitation of past research is that it has usually adopted a variable-centred approach, whereas a person-centred approach might describe people in more detail and provide further insight into the relationship between personality and morality. In the present study, we collected data from 316 participants and asked them to fill an on-line questionnaire which included measures on personality, moral disengagement, and lying tendency (perceived lying ability, frequency, negativity and contextuality). The latter was measured via the newly developed Structure of Deception (SoD) scale (Makowski et al., Current Psychology, 2021). We had to aims. First, to validate an Italian version of the SoD, which showed a good factor structure, gender measurement invariance, and good construct and criterion validity. Second, to explore the association between personal characteristics and lying tendency. Personality and morality scores were combined to obtain subpopulations of participants by a mean of cluster analysis. We obtained four clusters, one of which was marked by high Machiavellianism and moral disengagement but low scores on the personality factors, and one of which showed the opposite trend. The results also showed that cluster membership, and hence personal characteristics, was associated with lying tendency. The person-centred approach can be applied in research on lying. Limitations of the study and future suggestions are also discussed.

Profiling the Interrogee: Applying the Person-Centered Approach in Investigative Interviewing Research

In the past, deception detection research has explored whether there were specific personal characteristics that were related to lying and found that factors such as personality and morality are indeed related to lying. However, past research has usually focused on a variable-centered approach. Yet, a person-centered might be more suitable here as it allows for the study of people in an integrative manner. In this experiment, 673 students completed a questionnaire which included measures of the five factors of personality, the level of moral disengagement, the perceived cognitive load when lying, lying strategies, frequency of lying and the LiES scale, a tool measuring the tendency to tell self-serving, altruistic and vindicative lies. We performed a Latent Profile Analysis to integrate personality, moral disengagement, and perceived cognitive load scores into specific profiles. Then, we related profile membership to lying behavior. We obtained four profiles, and found that extraversion, moral disengagement, and the perceived cognitive load contributed most to profile differences. We also found that lying frequency did not differ across profiles, whereas lying tendency did. In conclusion, our results suggest that several facets of the individual play a joint role in lying behavior, and that adopting a person-centered approach might be a good strategy to explore the role of interpersonal differences in lie detection research.

Can Emotional Awareness of Liars Influence Deception Detection Effectiveness?

Emotional awareness is defined as the ability to cognitively process emotional arousal and the expression thereof. When telling a lie, emotional awareness comes into play: the most important objective is to conceal one's true emotions and fabricate false ones; simultaneously, however, one must control for the affective state of those who are to believe the falsehood; via such efforts, one can assess the potential for success in the deceit. With this in mind, we hypothesized that emotional awareness may play a vital role in the process of creating a convincing lie. Study participants (Group A, N = 40) were asked to complete the Polish adaptation of the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS) and record videos consisting of plotting some truth or lie, which were then rated as true or false by 400 volunteers (Group B). Both samples (Group A and Group B) were recruited among students attending Polish universities. The results allowed us to confirm correlational relationships between emotional awareness (general, self-awareness, and awareness of others' emotions) and the effectiveness of the deception. We were also able to confirm previous studies' results about the truth bias in detecting lies and gender differences in emotional awareness.