No abstract

This study addresses the frequency and the distribution of reported lying in the adult population. A national survey asked 1,000 U.S. adults to report the number of lies told in a 24-hour period. Sixty percent of subjects report telling no lies at all, and almost half of all lies are told by only 5% of subjects; thus, prevalence varies widely and most reported lies are told by a few prolific liars. The pattern is replicated in a reanalysis of previously published research and with a student sample. Substantial individual differences in lying behavior have implications for the generality of truth-lie base rates in deception detection experiments. Explanations concerning the nature of lying and methods for detecting lies need to account for this variation.Humans are ambivalent about deception. On one hand, virtually all human cultures have some prohibition against lying. On the other hand, the ability to deceive well may be essential for polite interaction and, at times, self-preservation. Considerable research exists on the topic of deception, yet surprisingly little is known about the base prevalence of deception. Instead, much of this research has relied on untested assumptions and anecdotal evidence or on a few studies with small and nonrepresentative samples.The dearth of deception prevalence research is a symptom of a broader systemic concern regarding research in the social sciences. Asch (1952, reprinted 1987) observed that ''before we inquire into origins and functional relations, it is necessary to know the thing we are trying to explain.'' Influenced by Asch, Rozin (2001) argued that social scientific research often emphasizes experimental studies and formal hypothesis testing to the exclusion of more basic descriptive work. In line with Rozin's critique, more than 30 years of experimental detection research has proceeded without much attention to the basic nature of the phenomena itself. We believe that inquiry into deception and related behaviors associated with deception detection requires basic descriptive research examining the extent and distribution of deceptive communication in the population. In the extensive literature on deception,

Friends with benefits (FWB) refers to "friends" who have sex. Study 1 (N = 125) investigated the prevalence of these relationships and why individuals engaged in this relationship. Results indicated that 60% of the individuals surveyed have had this type of relationship, that a common concern was that sex might complicate friendships by bringing forth unreciprocated desires for romantic commitment, and ironically that these relationships were desirable because they incorporated trust and comfort while avoiding romantic commitment. Study 2 (N = 90) assessed the relational negotiation strategies used by participants in these relationships. The results indicated that people in FWB relationships most often avoided explicit relational negotiation. Thus, although common, FWB relationships are often problematic for the same reasons that they are attractive.

Self-construal is thought to mediate and explain the effects of culture on a wide variety of outcome variables. A meta-analysis of published cross-cultural self-construal research is reported in this article, and the results across studies suggests that the evidence for the predicted cultural differences is weak, inconsistent, or nonexistent. The results of 3 priming experiments (N = 121, N = 99, and N = 361) suggest that (a) priming does not account for the inconsistent results observed in the meta-analysis, (b) that scores on a self-construal scale appear to be measuring trait-like constructs that are not sensitive to priming, and (c) that measures of self-construals lack convergent validity. The results of several measurement studies (N = 121, 223, 230, 323, 214, 206, 126, 204, 148, 141, and 150) were inconsistent with the a priori two-factor measurement model in every case. Self-construal scales were found to be radically multidimensional and highly unstable within and across cultures. These results lead us to conclude that catastrophic validity problems exist in research involving the use of self-construal scales in cross-cultural research.

Communication researchers, along with social scientists from a variety of disciplines, are increasingly recognizing the importance of reporting effect sizes to augment significance tests. Serious errors in the reporting of effect sizes, however, have appeared in recently published articles. This article calls for accurate reporting of estimates of effect size. Eta squared (η 2 ) is the most commonly reported estimate of effect sized for the ANOVA. The classical formulation of eta squared (Pearson, 1911;Fisher, 1928) is distinguished from the lesser known partial eta squared (Cohen, 1973), and a mislabeling problem in the statistical software SPSS (1998) is identified. What SPSS reports as eta squared is really partial eta squared. Hence, researchers obtaining estimates of eta squared from SPSS are at risk of reporting incorrect values. Several simulations are reported to demonstrate critical issues. The strengths and limitations of several estimates of effect size used in ANOVA are discussed, as are the implications of the reporting errors. A list of suggestions for researchers is then offered.