Effect of Introversion on the Detection of Deception

Running head: INTROVERSION AND DECEPTION DETECTION 1

Effect of Introversion on the Detection of Deception

Andrew M. Leslie

Pacific Union College

INTROVERSION AND DECEPTION DETECTION 2

Abstract

The difference in ability to determine the credibility of statements between introverted and

extroverted individuals has been explored. Research has shown that people in general perform

poorly when detecting falsehoods. However introverted people (given certain characteristics)

may be predisposed to perform better than most. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that

introverts would be more objective and skeptical, and thus more accurate when considering the

validity of information, than the average person. Seventy-six students at a liberal arts college in

Northern California (42 women and 34 men) divided into two samples, both given the NEO-PI-

R, and one group given a truth assessment, while the other viewed recorded confederates,

indicating a believed level of truthfulness. Our results support the hypothesis that introverts were

superior at detecting lies when compared to extroverts. This finding is significant because it

affirms that there is a legitimate ability of humans to detect falsehoods.

Keywords: introversion, extroversion, personality, deception detection, lie, polygraph


Effect of Introversion on the Detection of Deception

The idea that there is an ability to determine whether or not someone is telling the truth,

has fascinated many people, from criminal justice experts and psychologists, to parents and

lovers, for quite some time. Lie detection methods go far back into history, ranging from forcing

a suspect to chew dried rice (then spit it out) in ancient China (Jaffe, 2007), to torture in the

middle ages (McDonald, 2010). However most scientific research has not supported the validity

of any of these methods. Despite its popularity, torture has long been known to be ineffectual at

producing the real truth (Janoff-Bulman, 2007). Even the polygraph has been shown empirically

to be inaccurate, convicting innocent people, and letting criminals experienced at lying, walk free

(Saxe & Ben-Shakhar, 1999). The purpose of study is to explore whether or not introverted

people are an exception to the general finding, that people are not better than chance at detecting

lies.

There are many proposed methods for determining whether someone is telling the truth,

and all, or nearly all of them have had their reliability and accuracy challenged. While there may

be some amount physiological evidence to support the possible validity of the dried rice method

(a guilty person would be prone to having a dry mouth, and thus if grains stuck to the suspect's

tongue, they would be presumed guilty) (Jaffe, 2007), there is much historical and expert

evidence pointing to the flaws in methods such as torture... people will admit to nearly anything,

so long as they have been pushed to the point where they believe it will end their suffering.

(Janoff-Bulman, 2007). Polygraph tests, more commonly known as lie-detectors, which are still

in use for criminal cases, have been shown to have only reasonable reliability (depending on the

administrator), and marginal accuracy. In addition to being used in criminal cases, they used to


be used by employers as part of the pre-employment screening process. However, they were

barred from private use by employers, due to an overwhelming lack of evidence to support their

validity, and several studies showing that they produce both unreliable, and inaccurate results

(Herron, 1986; Saxe & Ben-Shakhar, 1999). Machines are bad at determining truthfulness, but

humans are generally no better (DePaulo, Charlton, Cooper, Lindsay, & Muhlenbruck, 1997;

Hartwig & Bond, 2011; O’Sullivan, Frank, Hurley, & Tiwana, 2009). In fact, the more confident

a person is that they can accurately determine credibility, the more likely they are to make a

mistake (DePaulo et. al., 1997). When it comes down to the line, all of the proposed forms of lie-

detection can be fooled. What remains to be found, is if there are forms of lie-detection which are

significantly more accurate and reliable than the current methods.

Although called into question (Bond, 2008), Paul Ekman, a renowned psychologist for

his work in the area of facial expressions, and his colleagues, have suggested that there are ways

that a person can more-or-less accurately detect deception... sometimes (Ekman, O'Sullivan,

1991; Ekman, O'Sullivan, & Frank,1999). His work was focused around facial micro-

expressions, and in a later study, on other unconscious body language (Ekman & O'Sullivan,

2006). His studies showed that there are ways that there are objective indicators of truthfulness,

which can be observed if a person objectively looks closely enough, at the right things. He noted

that some of his subjects were more adept at determining honesty than others. What he did not

look at however, is how personality factors may determine which people are more likely to be

adept, or why those people were better than average.

There is evidence to suggest that certain aspects of personality, such as empathy, affect a

person's ability to be objective when determining whether a statement is factual. According to


one study by Kristine A. Peace and her colleagues, personality could make a difference,

hindering or helping a person determine whether a statement is true or false (Peace, Porter, &

Almon, 2012). They suggest that in the studies which found no significant ability for a person to

determine whether or not a statement is factual, the statements under evaluation were “highly

innocuous”, “non-emotional” (as opposed to their test, which involved subjects judging rape

allegations), and therefore an individual difference in a person would not necessarily make a

person's success significantly greater or less than what could be expected by random chance.

They found significant evidence to support the idea that some of the Big Five personality traits

(McCrae & John, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 2008), such as high “openness to experience” and

“neuroticism”, could interact with the level of emotion in a statement, to give that person a

higher rate of accurately determining credibility. These may not be the only personality traits

which positively affect success.

Another of the personality traits which may play a role in the ability to determine

credibility, as defined by the Big Five Personality types, is that of extroversion-introversion.

Over the last 2 decades, psychologists have come to the conclusion that there are 5 factors which

determine the personality of a person. Extroversion is one of the factors that Peace, Porter, and

Almon found to be detrimental to a person's ability to determine whether emotional statements

are factual or not. An extrovert will be defined by the traits it encompasses within Costa and

McCrae's Five Factor model: assertiveness, energy, positive emotions, sociability, surgency, the

habitual need for stimulation from groups of other people, and talkativeness. Peace and her

colleagues did not however, test the other side of the continuum: Introversion. Introverted people

tend to learn from observations, be deliberate, less involved in and influenced by the social


world, and self-aware, though they typically don't express their emotions readily. This does not

necessarily mean a person are socially inept. Being an introvert may actually allow someone to

pick up on social ques more accurately, even if they “emit” them less. Hartwig and Bond

suggest that the errors made by humans in deception detection are more likely due to the ability

of some liars to fake social cues, than for the observers to miss them (2011). Because they are

less directly involved in the events around them, and more likely to internally analyze a situation

(as opposed to looking for the socially desirable decision), introverts may be more objective, and

thus, are less likely to be affected by certain emotional cues that might confound an extrovert's

ability to accurately determine credibility.

The hypotheses of the current study are: 1.) Introverts will more accurately be able to

determine the credibility of pre-recorded statements given by unknown persons, when compared

to those high in extroversion. 2.) Introverts will not score more highly than extroverts on a

written assessment of credibility.

Method

Participants

One-hundred students from an ethnically diverse liberal arts college in Northern

California (58 women and 42 men), age ranging from 18-30 (M = 20) volunteered to participate

in this study for extra credit in introductory psychology classes. Participants were randomly

divided into two groups. All subjects were treated in accordance with the ethical principals of

the APA. The following ethnic groups were represented: White (N = 41), Black (N = 15), Korean


(N = 10), Filipino (N = 10), Japanese (N = 5), Chinese (N = 5), Hispanic/Latino (N = 8), Other (N

= 6).

Materials

A survey to determine subjects perception of credibility of either a pre-recorded video

interview, or the transcript thereof. Three pre-recorded videos (see Appendix A), and

accompanying transcripts (see Appendices B, C, and D). A secondary survey was constructed

collecting demographic information (political affiliation, age, gender, ethnicity, place of birth),

and information about media habits (amount of television watched, time spent reading

fiction/non-fiction). Participants also completed the NEO-PI-R to determine whether they were

more introverted or extroverted (Costa & McCrae, 2008). IBM SPSS software was used for data

analysis and computations.

Procedure

A double blind study was conducted to determine if introverted people have a

significantly greater chance of detecting deception than the average person. (Through the course

of this section, for the purpose of avoiding confusion, researchers will be differentiated from

observers, where researchers will be those in charge of the study, and observers will be in charge

of recording and reporting results.) Raw data was kept for records to allow for clarification in the

case that a mistake is suspected anywhere during data analysis.

Phase one. Prior to the experiment, three confederates were video-recorded answering a

list of questions (there were slight variations in the questions between confederates, however all

subjects were exposed to the same videos and transcripts to avoid bias) with the instruction to


answer them as they would if they were responding to a parent, a job interviewer, or an

interviewer at an institution of higher education. This was done to emulate a situation where a

confederate would at the very least, be tempted to lie. Confederates were informed that they

could decline to answer any questions they felt uncomfortable with, however the questions were

designed to take confederates off guard, in order to simulate a lying scenario. A transcript of each

interview was produced for the control variable. Researchers then obtained the true answers to

each question confederates from the confederates (see Appendix E). Transcripts were marked

accordingly to indicate which video they belong with.

Phase two. Participants were divided into two equally sized groups, referred to as Group

A (The control group) and Group B (The experimental group), with group sizes of n = 50. All

participants received the same instruction, as well as an information sheet with general

information regarding the study (see Appendix F) Observers presented each participant with two

questionnaires, one at a time, and at the end, with a personality inventory. The first survey (see

Appendix G) was an evaluation form designed to measure the accuracy of the subject’s

perception of the confederate’s credibility. Subjects were informed that they were helping to

determine whether or not the confederate was lying. In the case that subjects asked further

questions, they were informed that the observer was not at liberty to provide more details.

Subjects in Group A were provided with the transcript of the video, with unlimited time to

review it while coming to a decision. Subjects in Group B were provided with a computer for the

purpose of viewing the video, and were not restricted in the number of times that they could

review the video before making a decision.


Phase three. After subjects had determined whether or not they believe the confederate is

lying, they returned papers into a slotted locking box, and were then given the second survey (see

Appendix H), which recorded demographic information, and in addition, asked questions to

distract subjects from the true purpose of the study. Following the completion of this survey,

which was also placed into the slotted locking box, subjects were asked to take the NEO-PI-R

personality inventory (Costa & McCrae, 2008). When subjects had completed this, and inserted

it into the slotted locking box, they were excused from the experiment area, and taken to a

debriefing room, where they were given more information about the study, and encouraged to

ask any questions they might have.

Phase four. Observers collected the data from each group individually, and entered both

sets of data into IBM SPSS as separate samples. This provided two approximately normal

distributions of data to compare side by side, to check for any anomalies, which could indicate

errors. From this point on, researchers took over data analysis, to prevent observer bias. Data was

verified by a third party to ensure proper entry into the system. Then researchers then analyzed

the data.


References

Bond Jr., C. F. (2008). Commentary a few can catch a liar, sometimes: Comments on Ekman

and O'Sullivan (1991), as well as Ekman, O'Sullivan, and Frank (1999). Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 1298-1300.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (2008). The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R). In G.

Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory

and assessment: Volume 2 — Personality measurement and testing. (pp. 179-199).

London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n9

DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The

Accuracy-Confidence Correlation in the Detection of Deception. Personality & Social

Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 1(4), 346.

Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?. American Psychologist, 46(9), 913-

920. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.913

Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological

Science, 10(3), 263-266. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00147

Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. r. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of

human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 643-659. doi:10.1037/a0023589

Herron, D. J. (1986). Statutory Restrictions on Polygraph Testing in Employer-Employee

Relationships. Labor Law Journal, 37(9), 632-638.


Janoff-Bulman, R. (2007). Erroneous assumptions: Popular belief in the effectiveness of torture

interrogation. Peace And Conflict: Journal Of Peace Psychology, 13(4), 429-435.

doi:10.1080/10781910701665766

Jaffe, E. (2007, February, 1). smithsonian.com: Detecting Lies. smithsonianmag.com . Retrieved

17 October, 2013, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lie.html?

c=y&story=fullstory

McCrae R, Costa P. The five-factor theory of personality. Handbook of personality: Theory and

research (3rd ed.) [e-book]. New York, NY US: Guilford Press; 2008:159-181. Available

from: PsycINFO, Ipswich, MA. Accessed November 18, 2013.

McCrae R, John O. An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its Applications. Journal Of

Personality [serial online]. June 1992;60(2):175-215. Available from: Academic Search

Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed November 18, 2013.

O’Sullivan, M., Frank, M. G., Hurley, C. M., & Tiwana, J. (2009). Police lie detection accuracy:

The effect of lie scenario. Law And Human Behavior, 33(6), 530-538.

doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4

Peace, K. A., Porter, S., & Almon, D. F. (2012). Sidetracked by emotion: Observers' ability to

discriminate genuine and fabricated sexual assault allegations. Legal And Criminological

Psychology, 17(2), 322-335. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02013.x

Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of

scientific standards post- Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 5(1), 203-223.

doi:10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.203

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lie.html


Appendix A

Video Interviews

Link 1: Interview 1 (see Appendix B)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4VtN8W_41Y&feature=youtu.be

Link 2: Interview 2 (see Appendix C)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLCYU9b56Ng&feature=youtu.be

Link 3: Interview 3 (see Appendix D)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_sn0FPl3sM&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_sn0FPl3sM&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLCYU9b56Ng&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4VtN8W_41Y&feature=youtu.be


Appendix B

Interview Number One

Prior to the study, a confederate was recruited to serve as the test-scenario. They were instructed to answer a series of questions as they would if they were talking to their parent. They were then asked afterwords which responses were factual and which were fabricated. They were not questioned as to why they fabricated responses. The confederate's responses were recorded below in bold-face type.

The confederate was recorded while answering the following questions:

Interviewer: On a one to ten scale, one being never, and ten being several times a day, how often do you lie?

How often... Maybe a two.

Interviewer: What physical characteristic of the opposite gender are you most attracted to?

Physical Characteristic... Um... Face.

Interviewer: On a one to ten scale, one being not at all, and ten being it is the most important thing, how much do you value your education?

An eight.

Interviewer: Have you ever cheated on an assignment or an exam?

Sure.

Interviewer: Do you believe in ghosts?

No.

Interviewer: On a one to ten scale, one being never , and ten being several times a week, how often do you skip class?

A two.

Interviewer: Have you ever had a crush on a teacher?

No.


Interviewer: Have you ever stolen something?

No.

Interviewer: Do you like tend to like elderly people or do you find them to be more of a nuisance?

Um.. I like them.

Interviewer: Do you believe in space aliens?

No.


Appendix C

Interview Number Two




Um... I'd say maybe about a three. Three or four.


I suppose it depends. Either... Hips, butt, breasts.


Here at this school, Or as a total?

Interviewer: As a total.

I'd say um..

Interviewer: Currently.

So here, what I'm studying at this school, or out of everything in life that I've learned?

Interviewer: Your current education.

Okay, I'd say about six or seven.

Interviewer: Have you ever cheated on an assignment or an exam?

According to the rules of what people consider cheating, yes.



If we are referring to spirits, then yes, I do believe in ghosts.

Interviewer: On a one to ten scale, one being never, and ten being several times a week, how often do you skip class?

One.


Yes.


Yes.


I tend to like elderly people.

Interviewer: Do you believe in space aliens?

I'm open to the idea.

Interviewer: “Could you give me a yes or a no response, or is that a decline to state?”

Yes.

Interviewer: “Thank you.”


Appendix D

Interview Number Three




Probably... four times.

Interviewer: Four times or on a one to ten scale; not necessarily...

Oh, okay, so on a one to ten scale, how many times do I lie?

Interviewer: Yes.

Well, same. Probably four.


The... Alright so, hair, eyes, legs, and of course... Ass. Okay?


Nine.

Interviewer: How often have you ever cheated on an exam?

Never.

Interviewer: “Never?”

Never.



Yes.Interviewer: On a one to ten scale, one being never , and ten being several times a week, how often do you skip class?

Probably... five.


No.


Yes.


Like them... For the most part.

Interviewer: Do you believe in extraterrestrial intelligence?

Yes.

Interviewer: On average, How many times a week do you masturbate?

About... Six or seven?

Interviewer: Have you ever cheated in a relationship?

No.

Interviewer: “Thank you.”


Appendix E

Table 1

Confederate Response Answer Key


Appendix F

Information about the Study

Thank you for choosing to participate in this study. Your identity will be kept confidential, and

no personally identifiable information will be released.

The following is a general description of what you can expect during the course of this study.

• Observers will provide you with a survey containing demographic questions, a short

reading activity and accompanying questions, and a follow-up survey to help us get to

know you better.

• The demographic questions will help us classify and categorize any data we collect about

you.

• The purpose of this study is to determine what sorts of articles people in this area would

be interested in reading in a small paper that is starting within the next few months.

Please read each passage carefully and then use it to answer the questions. Please answer

each question. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers, but at the same time, please

answer each question as truthfully as you can. If you are unsure of an answer, try to give

your best estimate.

• The survey at the end is to allow us to get to know you a little better, and help us

understand the data. Remember that all data collected about your person will be kept

confidential, and your identity will never be revealed, unless you choose to do so

yourself.


Appendix G

Credibility Reporting sheet:

Instructions: You will be watching a series of three videos, each with a different subject, and each

with slight variations in questions. You have been asked to help researchers determine whether or

not subjects are being honest. For each question that each subject is asked, please indicate

whether you believe the subject is being honest, or dishonest. If you are unsure, please circle

“Unsure”. Please note, more decisive you are, the more helpful your report will be.

Subject 1:

Question 1:

Honest Unsure DishonestQuestion 2:

Honest Unsure Dishonest

Question 3: Honest Unsure Dishonest









Subject 2:

Question 1:











Subject 3:

Question 1:















Appendix H

Demographics survey

What is your gender (Please circle one)?

Male Female Other

What is your current age?

_____

Please circle your ethnic origin (Mark all that apply):

• White

• Hispanic or Latino

• Black or African American

• Native American or American Indian

• Asian

• Other

Please indicate your level of education:

• High school Diploma or GED Equivalent

• Some College

• Associates Degree

• Bachelors degree

• Some Graduate School

• Graduate School Degree

• Doctorate

• Professional Degree

Please indicate the highest level of school of your most educated parent:

• High school Diploma or GED Equivalent

• Some College

• Associates Degree

• Bachelors degree


• Some Graduate School

• Graduate School Degree

• Doctorate

• Professional Degree

Please indicate your approximate annual household income:

• Less than $10,000

• $10,000 to $19,999

• $20,000 to $29,999

• $30,000 to $49,999

• $50,000 to $69,999

• $70,000 to $99,000

• More than $100,000

Please indicate approximately how many hours of news media you read, watch, or otherwise payattention to in a given week:

_____

Please indicate your marital status:

• Single

• In a committed relationship

• Married

• Divorced

• Married but legally separated

Which of the following descriptions do you find to be a more accurate description of yourself on most days?

• Introvert

• Extrovert

Which of the following descriptions do you find to be a more accurate description of yourself on most days?

• Optimist

• Pessimist

Thank you for your participation in this survey!

Effect of Introversion on the Detection of Deception

Documents