Journal ArticleDOI
Accuracy of Deception Judgments
Charles F. Bond,Bella M. DePaulo +1 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
It is proposed that people judge others' deceptions more harshly than their own and that this double standard in evaluating deceit can explain much of the accumulated literature.Abstract:
We analyze the accuracy of deception judgments, synthesizing research results from 206 documents and 24,483 judges. In relevant studies, people attempt to discriminate lies from truths in real time with no special aids or training. In these circumstances, people achieve an average of 54% correct lie-truth judgments, correctly classifying 47% of lies as deceptive and 61% of truths as nondeceptive. Relative to cross-judge differences in accuracy, mean lie-truth discrimination abilities are nontrivial, with a mean accuracy d of roughly .40. This produces an effect that is at roughly the 60th percentile in size, relative to others that have been meta-analyzed by social psychologists. Alternative indexes of lie-truth discrimination accuracy correlate highly with percentage correct, and rates of lie detection vary little from study to study. Our meta-analyses reveal that people are more accurate in judging audible than visible lies, that people appear deceptive when motivated to be believed, and that individuals regard their interaction partners as honest. We propose that people judge others' deceptions more harshly than their own and that this double standard in evaluating deceit can explain much of the accumulated literature.read more
Citations
More filters
Proceedings Article
Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination
TL;DR: This work develops and compares three approaches to detecting deceptive opinion spam, and develops a classifier that is nearly 90% accurate on the authors' gold-standard opinion spam dataset, and reveals a relationship between deceptive opinions and imaginative writing.
Journal ArticleDOI
The evolution and psychology of self-deception
TL;DR: This article argues that self-deception evolved to facilitate interpersonal deception by allowing people to avoid the cues to conscious deception that might reveal deceptive intent, and proposes that this is achieved through dissociations of mental processes, includingconscious versus unconscious memories, conscious versus unconscious attitudes, and automatic versus controlled processes.
Posted Content
Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination
TL;DR: This article developed and compared three approaches to detecting deceptive opinion spam, and ultimately developed a classifier that is nearly 90% accurate on the gold-standard opinion spam dataset. And they also made several theoretical contributions, including revealing a relationship between deceptive opinions and imaginative writing.
Posted Content
Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations
Saul M. Kassin,Steven A. Drizin,Thomas Grisso,Gisli H. Gudjonsson,Richard A. Leo,Allison D. Redlich +5 more
TL;DR: This article concludes with a strong recommendation for the mandatory electronic recording of interrogations and considers other possibilities for the reform of interrogation practices and the protection of vulnerable suspect populations.
References
More filters
Book
Practical Meta-Analysis
Mark W. Lipsey,David B. Wilson +1 more
TL;DR: This paper presents a meta-analysis procedure called “Meta-Analysis Interpretation for Meta-Analysis Selecting, Computing and Coding the Effect Size Statistic and its applications to Data Management Analysis Issues and Strategies.
Journal ArticleDOI
Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Larry V. Hedges,Jack L. Vevea +1 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluate the performance of confidence intervals and hypothesis tests when each type of statistical procedure is used for each kind of inference and confirm that each procedure is best for making the kind of inferences for which it was designed.
Journal ArticleDOI
Cues to deception
Bella M. DePaulo,James J. Lindsay,Brian E. Malone,Laura Muhlenbruck,Kelly Charlton,Harris Cooper +5 more
TL;DR: Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales, and their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents.