Accuracy of deception judgments.

Full 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.

Learn Faster Today Improve your study skills

Author information

Author/s: Bond, Charles F (CF); DePaulo, Bella M (BM);

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA. CBOND(-atsign-)TCU.EDU

Journal and publication information

Publication Type: Journal Article; Meta-Analysis

Journal: Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc (Pers Soc Psychol Rev), published in United States. (Language: eng)

Reference: 2006-; vol 10 (issue 3) : pp 214-34

Dates: Created 2006/07/24; Completed 2007/01/09;

PMID: 16859438, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 12/26/2008)

Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.

External Links for this article (including full text providers, if available):

Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.

This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.

MeSH headings (categories)

This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.

Deception
Humans
Judgment
Lie Detection - psychology

These are the highest related articles currently in the database:

Evaluating videotaped confessions: expertise provides no defense against the camera-perspective effect. 27 Feb 2007
Deception and detection in psychiatric diagnosis. 29 Nov 1998
Efficacy of repeated psychophysiological detection of deception testing. 30 Aug 1998
Interrogation and false confessions: vulnerability factors. 30 Mar 1992
New directions in applied psychophysiology. 30 May 1992
Practical methods for detecting mendacity: a case study. 30 Dec 2000
Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. 15 Sep 2001
The contribution of executive processes to deceptive responding. 30 Dec 2003
A cautionary lesson from simulated patients. 30 Dec 2003
Behavioral and physiological measures in the detection of concealed information. 30 Dec 2004

See 100+ related articles.