Literature DB >> 31173537

Lessons From Pinocchio: Cues to Deception May Be Highly Exaggerated.

Timothy J Luke1.   

Abstract

Deception researchers widely acknowledge that cues to deception-observable behaviors that may differ between truthful and deceptive messages-tend to be weak. Nevertheless, several deception cues have been reported with unusually large effect sizes, and some researchers have advocated the use of such cues as tools for detecting deceit and assessing credibility in practical contexts. By examining data from empirical deception-cue research and using a series of Monte Carlo simulations, I demonstrate that many estimated effect sizes of deception cues may be greatly inflated by publication bias, small numbers of estimates, and low power. Indeed, simulations indicate the informational value of the present deception literature is quite low, such that it is not possible to determine whether any given effect is real or a false positive. I warn against the hazards of relying on potentially illusory cues to deception and offer some recommendations for improving the state of the science of deception.

Keywords:  deception; false positives; meta-analysis; replication

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31173537     DOI: 10.1177/1745691619838258

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  9 in total

1.  Speech cues to deception in bilinguals.

Authors:  Margarethe McDonald; Elizabeth Mormer; Margarita Kaushanskaya
Journal:  Appl Psycholinguist       Date:  2020-07-24

2.  Clusters of nonverbal behavior differentiate truths and lies about future malicious intent in checkpoint screening interviews.

Authors:  David Matsumoto; Hyisung C Hwang
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2020-11-17

3.  Being accurate about accuracy in verbal deception detection.

Authors:  Bennett Kleinberg; Arnoud Arntz; Bruno Verschuere
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Statistical Significance Filtering Overestimates Effects and Impedes Falsification: A Critique of.

Authors:  Jonathan Z Bakdash; Laura R Marusich; Jared B Kenworthy; Elyssa Twedt; Erin G Zaroukian
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-12-22

5.  Veracity judgement, not accuracy: Reconsidering the role of facial expressions, empathy, and emotion recognition training on deception detection.

Authors:  Mircea Zloteanu; Peter Bull; Eva G Krumhuber; Daniel C Richardson
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 2.143

Review 6.  The Science of Lie Detection by Verbal Cues: What Are the Prospects for Its Practical Applicability?

Authors:  Tim Brennen; Svein Magnussen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-05

7.  Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self-reported good liars.

Authors:  Brianna L Verigin; Ewout H Meijer; Glynis Bogaard; Aldert Vrij
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Detecting false intentions using unanticipated questions.

Authors:  Glynis Bogaard; Joyce van der Mark; Ewout H Meijer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Autistic Adults May Be Erroneously Perceived as Deceptive and Lacking Credibility.

Authors:  Alliyza Lim; Robyn L Young; Neil Brewer
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2021-03-17
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.