Response bias in judging deceptive movements.
Two not mutually exclusive explanations, perceptual and motor expertise, account for the finding that experts outperform novices in recognizing deceptive actions from bodily (kinematic) cues. The aim of the present study was twofold: First, we sought to examine the impact of motor and perceptual expertise on distinguishing deceptive and non-deceptive actions. Second, we tested the hypothesis that differences in perceptual judgments on deceptive movements vs. non-deceptive movements do not necessarily need to be caused by either perceptual or motor expertise differences, but can also be a result of response bias. Skilled handball players (field players and goalkeepers) and novices had to detect whether a penalty-taker shot or faked a shot at the goal. Signal detection theory (SDT) analysis revealed that skilled handball players outperformed novices in discriminating shots from fakes. No differences in perceptual sensitivity were found between the goalkeepers and the field players. However, SDT analysis showed that goalkeepers were significantly biased to judge movements as deceptive, while neither field players nor novices showed this response bias.
Cañal-Bruland
R
R
Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.bruland@fbw.vu.nl
Schmidt
M
M
D000328:Adult; D008192:Deception; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D009039:Motion Perception; D009068:Movement; D011930:Reaction Time; D017603:Signal Detection, Psychological; D013177:Sports; D055815:Young Adult