This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bond, C. F. Articles by DePaulo, B. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bond, C. F., Jr. Articles by DePaulo, B. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Accuracy of Deception Judgments

Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University

Bella M. DePaulo

Department of Psychology, University of California at Santa Barbara

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.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, 214-234 (2006)
DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Van Swol The Effects of Confidence and Advisor Motives on Advice Utilization Communication Research, December 1, 2009; 36(6): 857 - 873. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. A. Leo False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, September 1, 2009; 37(3): 332 - 343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. King and B. Snook Peering Inside a Canadian Interrogation Room: An Examination of the Reid Model of Interrogation, Influence Tactics, and Coercive Strategies Criminal Justice and Behavior, July 1, 2009; 36(7): 674 - 694. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. A. Baron and Jintong Tang Entrepreneurs' Social Skills and New Venture Performance: Mediating Mechanisms and Cultural Generality Journal of Management, March 1, 2009; 35(2): 282 - 306. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Fiori A New Look at Emotional Intelligence: A Dual-Process Framework Personality and Social Psychology Review, February 1, 2009; 13(1): 21 - 44. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. G. Aamodt Reducing Misconceptions and False Beliefs in Police and Criminal Psychology Criminal Justice and Behavior, October 1, 2008; 35(10): 1231 - 1240. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Kassin Confession Evidence: Commonsense Myths and Misconceptions Criminal Justice and Behavior, October 1, 2008; 35(10): 1309 - 1322. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Vrij Nonverbal Dominance Versus Verbal Accuracy in Lie Detection: A Plea to Change Police Practice Criminal Justice and Behavior, October 1, 2008; 35(10): 1323 - 1336. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. Hall, N. A. Murphy, and M. S. Mast Nonverbal Self-Accuracy in Interpersonal Interaction Pers Soc Psychol Bull, December 1, 2007; 33(12): 1675 - 1685. [Abstract] [PDF]