Though these explicit classifications of truth and lies may not be substantially more reliable than flipping a coin, research suggests that other methods may be employed to detect deception. People feel differently when they have just heard a lie than when they have just heard a truth. Findings suggest these discrepancies may be the manifestations of people unknowingly processing true statements differently than false statements.
Even though participants do not make accurate explicit judgments at a rate substantially higher than chance, they may ignore implicit judgments made during exposure to stimuli. These implicit judgments can be expressed by rating true and false statements differently on a variety of dimensions and could provide an alternative method of discerning veracity. For instance, people tend to judge others as more deceptive if they show “weird” nonverbal behaviors that violate normative expectation. Other research has found that lie catchers reported using more verbal cues to detect deception when they had heard a truthful story than when they had heard a fabricated story and vice versa—listing more nonverbal cues when they had heard a fabricated story than when they had heard a truthful. Thus, the judges’ stated beliefs about cues to deception discriminated between truth- and lie-tellers at a higher accuracy rate than their explicit truth- or lie-judgments. In other words, the type and number of cues lie-catchers offer as justification for their decisions more accurately predicted the actual veracity of their stimuli better than their explicit judgments.
This discrepancy between the accuracy of implicit and explicit judgments has been observed in other contexts. For instance, groups of two, same-sex friends became no better at detecting deception over time, but their levels of discomfort and suspicion were higher when having just heard a lie than having just heard a truth. More obvious ignorance of implicit judgments has been observed when participants’ impressions of ambivalence, deceptiveness, tenseness, discrepancy, and indifference were significantly higher when they had just perceived deceptive messages than truthful messages. Finally, when subjects were asked to think aloud as they watched a video of either a truth-teller or lie-teller, they were more likely to entertain the possibility that they had heard a lie when they had just heard a lie and that they had heard a truth when they had just heard a truth even though their explicit judgment accuracy was still poor.
Prior studies have also shown that the accuracy-confidence correlation in deception detection studies is complicated. Overall, people often tend to be overconfident in their judgments. Research suggests that confidence can be used as an indirect cue to deception because people rate their confidence in their veracity judgment higher when they have just heard a truth than when they have just heard a lie. 
The above implicit judgments tend to lend themselves to more correct veracity judgments than are reflected by the explicit judgments made by participants. The discrepancy observed among these impressions between veracity conditions supports the idea that people may unwittingly process true and false statements differently. 
The stereotypical psychopath resides in a prison, locked away for committing some heinous act without a shred of remorse. While someone must be callous, remorseless, impulsive and irresponsible to be classified as a psychopath according to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, these cunning and manipulative people are not confined to the prison system. Your boss may, in fact, be a psychopath.
