Reply scoring and reporting: A response to bond (2008)

Ekman, Paul; O’Sullivan, Maureen; Frank, Mark G.

doi:10.1002/acp.1474

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order for a judge or an observer to make an accurate assessment of a person’s truthfulness, the individual must demonstrate behaviors relevant to the state or trait of truthfulness or deception (David Funder, personal communication, July 23, 2008). This aspect of the model is particularly germane to the present report in which we argue that the lie or truth being told must be sufficiently important, consequential or motivating to stimulate such behaviors in the target (see also Ekman, O’Sullivan, & Frank, 2008). The second stage of the model is termed availability.…”

Section: Theoretical Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…A designation of a lie scenario as ''high stakes,'' therefore, is meant to convey that for most people involved in it, a moderate to high level of motivation to succeed in lying or telling the truth has been achieved, either because the lie is personally relevant, the rewards are high, or the punishments are significant. We make this assumption for some of the high stakes studies included in this review because we note that only a few of them actually measured whether there were relevant behaviors that discriminated liars from truth tellers (e.g., Ekman, O'Sullivan, & Frank, 2008;Frank & Ekman, 1997;Vrij, 1994).…”

Section: Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this report emphasized the importance of stakes lies in determining lie detection accuracy for police professionals, in everyday life, low stakes are much more prevalent (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996), and research on those lies have enriched our understanding of social cognition, impression management, non-verbal behavior and other areas of concern to psychologists. We wish to emphasize here the importance of the differential validity of different kinds of lies for different kinds of professions (O'Sullivan & Ekman, 2004;Frank & Ekman, 1997;O'Sullivan, 2008). Therefore, to the extent that research scenarios capture the emotional and cognitive presses of the situations addressed by law enforcement officials in the course of their difficult and dangerous jobs, it seems likely that, overall, they will be better at making those judgments than laypeople; not all police, not all the time, but more frequently than most of us.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario.

O’Sullivan¹,

Frank²,

Hurley³

et al. 2009

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although most people are not better than chance in detecting deception, some groups of police professionals have demonstrated significant lie detection accuracy. One reason for this difference may be that the types of lies police are asked to judge in scientific experiments often do not represent the types of lies they see in their profession. Across 23 studies, involving 31 different police groups in eight countries, police officers tested with lie detection scenarios using high stakes lies (i.e., the lie was personally involving and/or resulted in substantial rewards or punishments for the liar) were significantly more accurate than law enforcement officials tested with low stakes lies. Face validity and construct validity of various lie scenarios are differentiated.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario.

O’Sullivan¹,

Frank²,

Hurley³

et al. 2009

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bond (2008) suspected manipulation and believed that Ekman and colleagues avoided reporting the findings that went against their general conclusion. Ekman, O'Sullivan, and Frank (2008) denied manipulation. They reported that after 1997, they tested additional groups of participants but that these new groups did not complete all the lie-detection tests that the earlier groups had completed.…”

Section: Endnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Vrij

Granhag

Porter

2010

Psychol Sci Public Interest

380

356

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such guidance in the present article.The article consists of two parts. The first section focuses on pitfalls to avoid and outlines the major factors that lead to failures in catching liars. Sixteen reasons are clustered into three categories: (a) a lack of motivation to detect lies (because accepting a fabrication might sometimes be more tolerable or pleasant than understanding the truth), (b) difficulties associated with lie detection, and (c) common errors made by lie detectors. We will argue that the absence of nonverbal and verbal cues uniquely related to deceit (akin Pinocchio's growing nose), the existence of typically small differences between truth tellers and liars, and the fact that liars actively try to appear credible contribute to making lie detection a difficult task. Other factors that add to difficulty is that lies are often embedded in truths, that lie detectors often do not receive adequate feedback about their judgments and therefore cannot learn from their mistakes, and that some methods to detect lies violate conversation rules and are therefore difficult to apply in real life. The final factor to be discussed in this category is that some people are just very good liars.The common errors lie detectors make that we have identified are examining the wrong cues (in part, because professionals are taught these wrong cues); placing too great an emphasis on nonverbal cues (in part, because training encourages such emphasis); tending to too-readily interpret certain behaviors, particularly signs of nervousness, as diagnostic of deception; placing too great an emphasis on simplistic rules of thumb; and neglecting inter-and intrapersonal differences. We also discuss two final errors: that many interview strategies advocated by police manuals can impair lie detection, and that professionals tend to overestimate their ability to detect deceit.The second section of this article discusses opportunities for maximizing one's chances of detecting lies and elaborates strategies for improving one's lie-detection skills. Within this section, we first provide five recommendations for avoiding the common errors in detecting lies that we identified earlier in the article. Next, we discuss a relatively recent wave of innovative lie-detection research that goes one step further and introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and t...

show abstract

“…Needless to say, these claims were greeted with skepticism (see Bond, 2008; Bond & Uysal, 2007; cf. Ekman et al, 2008).…”

Section: Misconception No 4: the Body Never Liesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four Misconceptions About Nonverbal Communication

Patterson

Fridlund

Crivelli

2023

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research and theory in nonverbal communication have made great advances toward understanding the patterns and functions of nonverbal behavior in social settings. Progress has been hindered, we argue, by presumptions about nonverbal behavior that follow from both received wisdom and faulty evidence. In this article, we document four persistent misconceptions about nonverbal communication—namely, that people communicate using decodable body language; that they have a stable personal space by which they regulate contact with others; that they express emotion using universal, evolved, iconic, categorical facial expressions; and that they can deceive and detect deception, using dependable telltale clues. We show how these misconceptions permeate research as well as the practices of popular behavior experts, with consequences that extend from intimate relationships to the boardroom and courtroom and even to the arena of international security. Notwithstanding these misconceptions, existing frameworks of nonverbal communication are being challenged by more comprehensive systems approaches and by virtual technologies that ambiguate the roles and identities of interactants and the contexts of interaction.

show abstract

Reply scoring and reporting: A response to bond (2008)

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario.

Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario.

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Four Misconceptions About Nonverbal Communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About