2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10919-017-0263-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How People Really Suspect and Discover Lies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings qualify the conclusions of prior studies (Levine and Daiku 2019, Masip and Herrero 2015, Masip and Sánchez 2019, Novotny et al 2018, Park et al 2002, Sánchez and Masip 2020. Participants in previous studies were asked to describe how they had detected a lie (revealing indicators), and they reported mostly non-behavioral indicators.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These findings qualify the conclusions of prior studies (Levine and Daiku 2019, Masip and Herrero 2015, Masip and Sánchez 2019, Novotny et al 2018, Park et al 2002, Sánchez and Masip 2020. Participants in previous studies were asked to describe how they had detected a lie (revealing indicators), and they reported mostly non-behavioral indicators.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Park et al's results provide strong evidence that laboratory experiments do not capture the ordinary real-life conditions where deception judgments are made, that empirical results of laboratory experiments cannot be generalized to everyday-life circumstances, and that in everyday life it is non-behavioral information, rather than behavioral cues, that allows people to detect deceit. Park et al's (2002) findings relative to the prominent role of non-behavioral information (compared to behavioral cues) in detecting real-life deception have been replicated more recently by Levine and Daiku (2019), Masip and Herrero (2015), Novotny et al (2018), and Park and Lee (cited in Levine 2020). Masip and Sánchez (2019) conducted a mini meta-analysis of the four empirical studies available at the time and found that, across studies, 82% of the indicators reported were nonbehavioral, while only 17% were behavioral (but see Sánchez and Masip 2020, for a study failing to find this effect).…”
Section: In Real Life People Detect Deception From Non-behavioral Informationmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Based on these findings we can assume that showing stereotypical ‘deceptive’ behaviour during an interrogation —early or late— negatively influences the investigative process. Indeed, Novotny et al () reported that behavioural cues are often relied upon in the early stage of the lie detection process and sets in motion the search for other evidence. This, in turn, aligns with Kassin's () assumption that the starting point of false confessions and wrongful convictions is often mistaken lie detection by investigators who focus too much on stereotypical cues.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only 14.9% are discovered at the moment they are told, and most lies are discovered relatively late (Park et al, 2002). Several follow-up studies confirmed the importance of factchecking and evidence (Blair et al, 2010;Masip and Herrero, 2015;Novotny et al, 2018;Levine and Daiku, 2019;Masip Pallejá et al, 2021). Timing is different in real-life in comparison with laboratory experiments.…”
Section: Psychological Research On Deceptionmentioning
confidence: 95%