Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self-reported good liars

Despite the importance of deception detection, research consistently shows low accuracy rates, often around chance level. A growing body of evidence suggests that successful deception hinges more on the liar's characteristics than the detector's skill. Bond and DePaulo's meta-analysis (2008) strongly supports this, showing higher reliability in liar detectability than in judge credulity. This pattern has been replicated, highlighting the significant influence of liar characteristics on deception detection outcomes. Sender demeanor, in particular, has been shown to account for up to 98% of the variance in detection accuracy. However, few studies have investigated individual differences in credible lying ability. Understanding the characteristics of "good liars"—those who evade detection—holds considerable value, particularly in investigative settings. This exploratory study examines the association between self-reported deception ability and lie prevalence, characteristics, and deception strategies. First, it investigates the relationship between self-reported lie-telling frequency and self-reported deception ability, considering that previous research indicates a skewed distribution of lies, with a minority of individuals responsible for the majority of lies told. Second, the study examines whether lie characteristics (severity, recipient, and medium) differ based on self-reported deception ability. Third, it explores how self-reported good liars utilize deception strategies, drawing upon research on impression and information management and existing studies on deceivers' strategies such as "Staying close to the truth" and "Not giving away information."

Existing research indicates that people are poor at detecting lies, with accuracy rates often at chance levels. Meta-analyses reveal that the liar's characteristics, rather than the detector's skill, are more influential in determining whether a lie is successfully detected. Studies have shown a skewed distribution of lies, with a small percentage of prolific liars accounting for a large portion of all lies told. These prolific liars tend to tell more serious lies with significant consequences if discovered. There is limited research on individual differences in lying ability, particularly on the strategies employed by skilled liars. Existing taxonomies of lies include white lies (inconsequential) and bold-faced lies (serious, self-protective). The medium of communication (face-to-face, online) may also influence lie success. Previous work has examined strategies such as providing unverifiable details or staying close to the truth, leading to the development of strategy-based lie detection tools like the Verifiability Approach.

This study, approved by the ethical committee of Maastricht University, used an online questionnaire (Qualtrics) administered via Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk). 194 participants (97 female, 95 male) primarily US citizens, with a Master's qualification on mTurk, completed the survey and were compensated $1.75. Definitions of lying and deception, adapted from prior research, were provided. Participants rated their deception ability (1-10 Likert scale), estimated the number of lies told in the past 24 hours, and indicated the type, recipient, and medium of those lies. The second part of the questionnaire explored deception strategies through an open-ended question and Likert scale ratings of the importance of verbal and nonverbal strategies. A list of pre-determined verbal strategies was also included. Demographic data (age, sex, citizenship, ethnicity, education) was collected. A final section, detailed in the supplementary materials, focused on a recalled serious lie. Qualitative data from the open-ended strategy question was analyzed using content analysis, with inter-rater reliability assessed using a two-way mixed effects model. Chi-square tests and ANOVAs were used to examine associations between lie characteristics, strategies, and self-reported deception ability.

Participants reported an average of 1.61 lies in the past 24 hours, but the distribution was highly skewed, with a small number of prolific liars (less than 1% accounting for 38.5% of lies). 39% reported telling no lies. Most reported white lies, to family, face-to-face. Higher self-reported deception ability correlated with: more lies per day; more white lies and exaggerations; lying to colleagues and friends; and face-to-face interactions. Good liars valued verbal strategies more. Qualitative analysis revealed that the most commonly used strategies involved: embedding lies in truthful information, keeping statements simple and clear, and providing plausible accounts. Good liars reported using these strategies significantly more than poor liars. Poor liars used avoidance/vagueness more than good liars. There was a significant association between gender and self-reported deception ability, with more women reporting as poor liars and more men as good liars. No significant association was found between education level and self-reported deception ability.

The study replicated the finding of a skewed distribution of lying frequency, with a minority of individuals responsible for the majority of lies. Self-reported good liars reported more frequent lying, predominantly inconsequential lies, and favored face-to-face communication. Their verbal strategies focused on embedding lies within truthful narratives, maintaining clarity and plausibility. This contrasts with poor liars who used avoidance strategies. The finding that good liars reported mostly inconsequential lies is surprising, possibly due to inflated self-perception or a focus on trivial lies. The preference for face-to-face lying may reflect a strategic choice, given expectations of more online deception. The discrepancy between qualitative and quantitative strategy data highlights challenges in measuring and reporting deception strategies. Future research should explore the effectiveness of cued recall and combine data-driven and theory-driven approaches.

This study offers valuable insights into the prevalence, characteristics, and strategies of self-reported good liars. It confirms the skewed distribution of lying, with prolific liars also viewing themselves as skilled. Good liars tend towards inconsequential lies, face-to-face communication, and sophisticated verbal strategies focused on truth integration, plausibility, and simplicity. Future research could examine these findings using controlled laboratory settings, different populations, and refined methods for measuring deception ability and strategies, including examining the effects of interview techniques.

The study relies on self-reported data, which is subject to biases. While previous research supports the use of self-report for lying prevalence, ground truth regarding the actual skill of self-reported good liars wasn't established. The use of Amazon MTurk, despite employing measures to ensure data quality and its demonstrated equivalence to other sampling methods, might still introduce limitations to generalizability. Future research could replicate the study with different populations and methods (e.g., controlled deception tasks, cued recall of strategies).