Home » News » Group Discussion Improves Lie Detection
Group Discussion Improves Lie Detection

Group Discussion Improves Lie Detection

A new study finds that groups are consistently more accurate in distinguishing truth from lies.

For the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business designed four experiments in which groups consistently distinguished truth from lies more accurately.

The study found that the group advantage in lie detection comes through the process of group discussion, not the product of a “wisdom of crowds” effect, according to the researchers.

In other words, groups were not simply maximizing the small amounts of accuracy contained among individual members, but were instead creating a unique type of accuracy altogether, they explain.

“We find a consistent group advantage for detecting small ‘white’ lies as well as intentional, high-stakes lies told for personal gain,” said researcher Nicholas Epley, Ph.D. “This group advantage seems to come through the process of group discussion rather than statistical aggregation of individual opinions.”

According to the study, the modest accuracy rate of people who can detect deception is driven mostly by the tendency to detect truths, rather than lies. This has led other researchers to develop costly training programs that target individual lie detectors to increase accuracy.

Epley and doctoral student Nadav Klein tested a different strategy: Asking individuals to detect lies as a group.

“Existing research demonstrates that increasing incentives for accuracy among lie detectors does not increase accuracy, but that increasing incentives for effective deception among lie tellers make lies easier to detect,” Epley said.

“Therefore, we did not manipulate lie detectors’ incentives to detect truth versus lies accurately, but instead asked participants to detect truths v. lies in low-stakes and high-stakes contexts for the lie tellers.”

In two experiments, subjects watched videos of different statements from different speakers and guessed whether each statement was a truth or a lie, either individually or in three-person groups. The only difference between the two experiments was that in the second, researchers used different statements and also nearly doubled the sample size.

In both, results were the same, according to the researchers. Groups were more accurate than individuals (61.7 percent and 60.3 percent group accuracy in Experiments one and two, respectively, compared to 53.55 percent and 53.56 percent individual accuracy).

The third experiment tested whether the group advantage in lie detection applied to high-stakes and intentional lies. Groups were again more accurate, with 53.2 percent over 48.7 percent in individual accuracy, the researchers report.

The fourth experiment focused on two underlying reasons groups could better identify deception than individuals. First, group discussion could identify the most accurate person within a group, which increases accuracy through a sorting mechanism; and secondly, group discussion could elicit observations about the target that provide information needed to make an accurate assessment, according to the researchers.

“Interventions to improve lie detection typically focus on improving individual judgment, which is costly and generally ineffective,” Epley said. “Our findings suggest a cheap and simple synergistic approach of enabling group discussion before rendering a judgment.”

Source: University of Chicago Booth School of Business

Group Discussion Improves Lie Detection

Janice Wood

Janice Wood is a long-time writer and editor who began working at a daily newspaper before graduating from college. She has worked at a variety of newspapers, magazines and websites, covering everything from aviation to finance to healthcare.

APA Reference
Wood, J. (2018). Group Discussion Improves Lie Detection. Psych Central. Retrieved on December 4, 2020, from
Scientifically Reviewed
Last updated: 8 Aug 2018 (Originally: 13 Jun 2015)
Last reviewed: By a member of our scientific advisory board on 8 Aug 2018
Published on Psych All rights reserved.