Home runs and humbugs: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008).

Full Abstract

In 2006, C. F. Bond Jr. and B. M. DePaulo provided a meta-analysis of means and concluded that average lie detection accuracy was significantly greater than chance for most people. Now, they have presented an analysis of standard deviations (C. F. Bond Jr. & B. M. DePaulo, 2008), claiming that there are no reliable individual differences in lie detection accuracy; such differences are due to chance alone. Their conclusions are based principally on studies with college students as lie detectors and lie scenarios of dubious ecological validity. When motivated professional groups have been shown either high stakes lie scenarios or scenarios involving appropriate liars and truth-tellers, average accuracies significantly above chance have been found for 7 different professional groups reported by 12 researchers in 3 countries. The replicated and predicted performance of extremely accurate individual lie detectors ("truth wizards") also undermines the claim of no individual differences in lie detection accuracy. Psychometrically, the stochastic model used is problematic because it does not meet the assumptions of classical test theory.PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA

Learn Faster Today Improve your study skills

Author information

Author/s: O'Sullivan, Maureen (M);

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA. osullivan(-atsign-)usfca.edu

Journal and publication information

Publication Type: Comment; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Journal: Psychological bulletin (Psychol Bull), published in United States. (Language: eng)

Reference: 2008-Jul; vol 134 (issue 4) : pp 493-7; discussion 501-3

Dates: Created 2008/07/08; Completed 2008/08/28;

PMID: 18605815, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 11/6/2008)

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

Comments and Corrections

CommentOn: Psychol Bull. 2008 Jul;134(4):477-92. (PMID: 18605814)

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
Individuality
Judgment - physiology
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Observer Variation

Observer Variation
Psychometrics - methods
Reproducibility of Results
Social Behavior
Stochastic Processes
Wit and Humor as Topic

These are the highest related articles currently in the database:

Methodological issues in meta-analyzing standard deviations: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008). 29 Jun 2008
[Deleted Record] 29 Jun 2008
Medicare program; home health prospective payment system refinement and rate update for calendar year 2008. Final rule with comment period. 27 Aug 2007
Prognostic value of humbug gene overexpression in stage II colon cancer. Oct 2006
Differential growth factor regulation of aspartyl-(asparaginyl)-beta-hydroxylase family genes in SH-Sy5y human neuroblastoma cells. 5 Dec 2006
Overexpression of humbug promotes malignant progression in human gastric cancer cells. 28 Feb 2008
Bah humbug! Tips for fighting the holiday blues. 29 Nov 2006
Medicare in 2006: bah, humbug! 14 Dec 2005
Choice? Bah! Humbug! 30 Jul 2006

See 100+ related articles.