It takes an insecure liar to catch a liar: The link between attachment insecurity, deception, and detection of deception ☆ Tsachi Ein-Dor ⁎, Adi Perry-Paldi, Karin Zohar-Cohen, Yaniv Efrati, Gilad Hirschberger Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, School of Psychology, Israel abstract article info Article history: Received 4 January 2017 Received in revised form 6 March 2017 Accepted 7 March 2017 Available online xxxx Lies and deceptions are prevalent in our daily lives, yet most people merely guess when attempting to distinguish between lies and truths. In the current research, we examined the validity of the saying that “it takes a thief to know a thief” by showing that it takes a good liar – one high in attachment insecurity – to detect another liar. In Study 1, 68 card players participated in a Bullshit tournament – a card game in which players try to deceive other players while also striving to detect their deceptions. In Study 2 (N = 99), people who cheated on their ro- mantic partner (versus those who did not) were asked to detect cues of infidelity. Results confirmed our expec- tations and showed that good liars and cheaters, who are usually insecure individuals, are better at detecting lies and dishonesty. These results are discussed from the perspective of social defense theory, highlighting the utility of personality traits that are often deemed maladaptive. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Lying Deceit Infidelity Cheating Detection Attachment insecurity Research shows that people are naïve when it comes to detecting de- ception, and tend to do so only slightly better than chance (for a meta- analysis see Bond & DePaulo, 2006). To date, over 100 studies were con- ducted to predict individual differences in deception-detection accuracy (Aamodt & Custer, 2006), but none have examined whether the cliché that “it takes a thief to know a thief” has any merit, and could be applied to the study of detection of lies and deception. In the present research, we take a social defense theory perspective (SDT; Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, Doron, & Shaver, 2010) to address the possibility that it takes a good liar to detect a liar, while suggesting that this liar may possess a unique constellation of characteristics that enable such interpersonal sensitivity. Lying and deceptions are an integral part of human life. Research shows that over 90% of all people lie about their true feelings, income, accomplishments, sex life, and age (Patterson & Kim, 1991). Although Freud (1905/1997) contended that lying is blatantly apparent, and that “no mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his finger-tips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore” (p. 94), the pre- ponderance of research portrays an abysmal human ability to detect de- ception in a wide variety of contexts (professional judgments, interpersonal interactions, business exchanges, close relationships) – an ability (or inability) that is seldom better than chance (Bond & DePaulo, 2006, p. 231). This seeming human failure to detect deceit stands against the pivot- al importance that detecting deceit has for human life. According to haz- ard management theory (Fiddick, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2000), the detection of interpersonal deceit is essential because it enables people to take appropriate precautions to avoid a variety of substantial hazards. How can we reconcile the central importance of detecting deceit with the seemingly poor human ability to do so? In the present research, we contend that certain individuals are better equipped at detecting lies and cheating and that this ability has many social benefits. Specifi- cally, we suggest that people who are good at lying and/or had extensive experience in lying are also better than others in detecting lies and de- ceptions. Previous research has mainly focused on situational factors in the ability to successfully detect lies (Reinhard, Scharmach, & Siegfried, 2012; Reinhard, Sporer, & Scharmach, 2013; Reinhard, Sporer, Scharmach, & Marksteiner, 2011). In the current research, we take an individual difference perspective and contend that some indi- viduals are better liars than others (are less likely to be caught), and that these individuals are also better than others in detecting lies. According to social defense theory (SDT; Ein-Dor et al., 2010), people who are highly anxious about separation and abandonment are more able than others to quickly and accurately detect threats and danger such as interpersonal lies (Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014; Ein-Dor, Perry-Paldi, Daniely, Zohar-Cohen, & Hirschberger, 2016). Anxiety from separation and abandonment, or attachment anxiety (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), relates to the activation of an innate psychobiological system (the attachment behavioral system) that was perfected by evolution and which motivates people to seek proximity to significant others (at- tachment figures) when in need of protection from danger. Social and Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 81–87 ☆ This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 942414) granted to the first author. ⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center, P.O.Box 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel. E-mail address: teindor@idc.ac.il (T. Ein-Dor). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.015 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid