RESEARCH PAPER
Examination of the role of dispositional and state suspicion in deceptive ratings and veracity judgments
 
More details
Hide details
1
Graduate School of Sociology, Toyo University, Tokyo, Japan
 
2
Institute of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan
 
 
Submission date: 2024-10-14
 
 
Final revision date: 2025-03-03
 
 
Acceptance date: 2025-04-14
 
 
Online publication date: 2025-09-26
 
 
Corresponding author
Yuta Takiguchi   

Graduate School of Sociology, Toyo University, Tokyo, Japan
 
 
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
How suspicious individuals are about some information affects how they judge whether the information is truthful. Being suspicious increases the possibility of one making a lie judgment about others (judging that others are lying); however, previous research has rarely distinguished between two types of suspicion: dispositional and state. This study examined how dispositional suspicion affects deceptiveness impressions and veracity judgments under different levels of state suspicion. Also, the relationship between the two types of suspicion and the amount of information people gather for truth-lie judgments was explored.

Participants and procedure:
Participants (N = 260) watched videos of someone telling either the truth or a lie, and immediately rated how deceptive the speaker looked, then made a final veracity judgment about him/her. Participants were assigned to two conditions: in one, they were informed that the speaker in the video might have committed a crime (suspicious condition), while in the other, they were not (non-suspicious condition). Participants were allowed to watch a maximum of five videos before making the final decision, and they all reported their level of dispositional suspicion.

Results:
The results indicated that participants with high dispositional suspicion perceived the speaker as more deceptive than those with less suspicion but did not necessarily make more lie judgments. Although not statistically significant, there was a clear trend that the effect of dispositional suspicion was evident only under low-state suspicion. It was also found that more suspicious participants gathered less information.

Conclusions:
The finding that dispositional suspicion and state suspicion interactively influence deception perception has practical implications for judgments under low suspicion (e.g., fraud).
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Bond, Jr, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/106831....
 
2.
Bond, G. D., & Lee, A. Y. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.10....
 
3.
Bond, G. D., Thompson, L. A., & Malloy, D. M. (2005). Vulnerability of older adults to deception in prison and nonprison contexts. Psychology and Aging, 20, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7....
 
4.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A., Rockwell, P., & White, C. (1996). Testing interpersonal deception theory: Effects of suspicion on nonverbal behavior and relational messages. Communication Theory, 6, 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468....
 
5.
Fan, X., Griffin, D. J., & Tagg, E. P. (2022). Lie judgment trigger sensitivity and truth-bias: Truth default theory in intergroup communication. Communication Quarterly, 70, 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/014633....
 
6.
Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
 
7.
Hubbell, A. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Gee, J. C. (2001). The relative effects of timing of suspicion and outcome involvement on biased message processing. Communication Monographs, 68, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/036377....
 
8.
Hurst, M., & Oswald, M. (2012). Mechanisms underlying response bias in deception detection. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 759–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/106831....
 
9.
Kim, R. K., & Levine, T. R. (2011). The effect of suspicion on deception detection accuracy: Optimal level or opposing effects? Communication Reports, 24, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/089342....
 
10.
Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): a theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/026192....
 
11.
Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1991). The dark side of trust: Conceptualizing and measuring types of communicative suspicion. Communication Quarterly, 39, 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/014633....
 
12.
Levine, T. R., Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., & Moore, A. (2021). The truth-default and video clips: Testing the limits of credulity. Communication Studies, 72, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/105109....
 
13.
Masip, J., Garrido, E., Herrero, C., Antón, C., & Alonso, H. (2006). Officers as lie detectors. Guilty before charged. In D. Chadee & J. Young (Eds.), Current themes in social psychology (pp. 187–205). The University of the West Indies Press.
 
14.
Masip, J., Alonso, H., Herrero, C., & Garrido, E. (2016). Experienced and novice officers’ generalized communication suspicion and veracity judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb000....
 
15.
Nahari, G. (2012). Elaborations on credibility judgments by professional lie detectors and laypersons: Strategies of judgment and justification. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/106831....
 
16.
Nasello, J. A., Triffaux, J. M., & Hansenne, M. (2024). Individual differences and personality traits across situations. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 12, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp/1....
 
17.
Novotny, E., Carr, Z., Frank, M. G., Dietrich, S. B., Shaddock, T., Cardwell, M., & Decker, A. (2018). How people really suspect and discover lies. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919....
 
18.
O’Sullivan, M. (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-cried-wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1316–1327. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616....
 
19.
Robinson, C. D., Tomek, S., & Schumacker, R. E. (2013). Tests of moderation effects: Difference in simple slopes versus the interaction term. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 39, 16–24.
 
20.
Sinaceur, M. (2010). Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp....
 
21.
Stiff, J. B., Kim, H. J., & Ramesh, C. N. (1992). Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception. Communication Research, 19, 326–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365....
 
22.
Street, C. N., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). Lies, damn lies, and expectations: How base rates inform lie-truth judgments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.30....
 
23.
Strömwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Jonsson, A. C. (2003). Deception among pairs: “Let’s say we had lunch and hope they will swallow it!” Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/106831....
 
24.
Van Swol, L. M., Malhotra, D., & Braun, M. T. (2012). Deception and its detection: Effects of monetary incentives and personal relationship history. Communication Research, 39, 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365....
 
25.
Vishwanath, A., Harrison, B., & Ng, Y. J. (2018). Suspicion, cognition, and automaticity model of phishing susceptibility. Communication Research, 45, 1146–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365....
 
26.
Wen, X., Xu, L., Wang, J., Gao, Y., Shi, J., Zhao, K., Tao, F., & Qian, X. (2022). Mental states: a key point in scam compliance and warning compliance in real life. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 8294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph....
 
27.
Zhou, X., Liao, J. Q., Liu, Y., & Liao, S. (2017). Leader impression management and employee voice behavior: Trust and suspicion as mediators. Social Behavior and Personality, 45, 1843–1854. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.66....
 
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
eISSN:2353-561X
ISSN:2353-4192
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top