Literature DB >> 17221308

Unicorns or Tiger Woods: are lie detection experts myths or rarities? A response to on lie detection "wizards" by Bond and Uysal.

Maureen O'Sullivan1.   

Abstract

Bond and Uysal (this issue) complain that expert lie detectors identified by O'Sullivan and Ekman (2004) are statistical flukes. They ignore one class of experts we have identified and misrepresent the procedures we use to identify the others. They also question the psychometric validity of the measures and protocol used. Many of their points are addressed in the chapter they criticize. The fruitfulness of the O'Sullivan-Ekman protocol is illustrated with respect to improved identification of expert lie detectors, as well as a replicated pattern of errors made by experts from different professional groups. The statistical arguments offered confuse the theoretical use of the binomial with the empirical use of the normal distribution. Data are provided that may clarify this distinction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17221308     DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9058-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Law Hum Behav        ISSN: 0147-7307


  3 in total

1.  Lie detection accuracy and beliefs about cues to deception in adult children of alcoholics.

Authors:  Joanna Ulatowska; Iga Nowatkiewicz; Sylwia Rajdaszka
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2020-03-10

2.  It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language.

Authors:  Marvin K H Law; Simon A Jackson; Eugene Aidman; Mattis Geiger; Sally Olderbak; Sabina Kleitman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  How to detect high-performing individuals and groups: Decision similarity predicts accuracy.

Authors:  R H J M Kurvers; S M Herzog; R Hertwig; J Krause; M Moussaid; G Argenziano; I Zalaudek; P A Carney; M Wolf
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 14.136

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.