Literature DB >> 18605814

Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias.

Charles F Bond1, Bella M Depaulo.   

Abstract

The authors report a meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception, confining attention to occasions when people judge strangers' veracity in real-time with no special aids. The authors have developed a statistical technique to correct nominal individual differences for differences introduced by random measurement error. Although researchers have suggested that people differ in the ability to detect lies, psychometric analyses of 247 samples reveal that these ability differences are minute. In terms of the percentage of lies detected, measurement-corrected standard deviations in judge ability are less than 1%. In accuracy, judges range no more widely than would be expected by chance, and the best judges are no more accurate than a stochastic mechanism would produce. When judging deception, people differ less in ability than in the inclination to regard others' statements as truthful. People also differ from one another as lie- and truth-tellers. They vary in the detectability of their lies. Moreover, some people are more credible than others whether lying or truth-telling. Results reveal that the outcome of a deception judgment depends more on the liar's credibility than any other individual difference. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18605814     DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Bull        ISSN: 0033-2909            Impact factor:   17.737


  36 in total

1.  Effects of the duration of expressions on the recognition of microexpressions.

Authors:  Xun-bing Shen; Qi Wu; Xiao-lan Fu
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 2.  Credible testimony in and out of court.

Authors:  Barbara A Spellman; Elizabeth R Tenney
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-04

3.  Identifying component-processes of executive functioning that serve as risk factors for the alcohol-aggression relation.

Authors:  Peter R Giancola; Aaron J Godlaski; Robert M Roth
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2011-08-29

4.  Measuring the cognitive resources consumed per second for real-time lie-production and recollection: a dual-tasking paradigm.

Authors:  Chao Hu; Kun Huang; Xiaoqing Hu; Yanshuo Liu; Fang Yuan; Qiandong Wang; Genyue Fu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-07

5.  The impact of non-concordant self-report of substance use in clinical trials research.

Authors:  C Brendan Clark; Cosmas M Zyambo; Ye Li; Karen L Cropsey
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 3.913

6.  Alcohol, violence, and the Alcohol Myopia Model: preliminary findings and implications for prevention.

Authors:  Peter R Giancola; Aaron A Duke; Katalin Z Ritz
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2011-05-30       Impact factor: 3.913

7.  The inhibitory spillover effect: Controlling the bladder makes better liars.

Authors:  Elise Fenn; Iris Blandón-Gitlin; Jennifer Coons; Catherine Pineda; Reinalyn Echon
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2015-09-11

8.  The Effects of Repetition on Children's True and False Reports.

Authors:  Angela D Evans; Megan K Brunet; Victoria Talwar; Nicholas Bala; Rod C L Lindsay; Kang Lee
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2012-08-01

9.  Is it costly to deceive? People are adept at detecting gossipers' lies but may not reward honesty.

Authors:  Miguel A Fonseca; Kim Peters
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-10-04       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  To err is human but not deceptive.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Walczyk; Natalie F Cockrell
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-06-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.