This thesis replicates recent diagnostic utility studies to determine whether the original methods are (1) generalizable to a new population and (2) useful in identifying specific questioning strategies relevant to international militaries. Previous research shows that people are, on average, only slightly better-than-chance at detecting deception. In 2006, Personality and Social Psychology Review published Accuracy of Deception Judgments in which Charles F. Bond Jr. and Bella DePaulo identified that meta-analysis yields an across-study average accuracy rate of about 54%. New research has shifted from the historical cue-based deception detection paradigm in favor of the idea of diagnostic utility. Specifically, this new line of research provides a basis for demonstrating that the design of specific questions is vital in determining deceptive individuals. Currently, the research conducted thus far provides levels of deception detection accuracy significantly greater than the usual slightly-better-than-chance results that is characterized by historical research. Our findings from quantitative Study 1 demonstrated that international military officer participants detected deception at 70.8% for experts and 63.8% for non-experts. Finally, the authors’ qualitative Study 2 identified that participant’s claim to have utilized third-party information, physical information, and verbal/nonverbal clues most often when detecting deception in previous situations. These findings are in line with historical research.http://archive.org/details/deceptiondetecti1094545212Outstanding ThesisEnsign, United States NavyMajor, United States Marine CorpsApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited
