Accuracy of Deception Judgments

By C. F. Bond, B. DePaulo. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2006

1,783 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/66f48d526f9a31c8360cda3ef251c93c4cbca0f9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Dangerous decisions: the impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability (2010, background): “Despite the general attitude that people are able to make accurate determinations of credibility based on common sense, empirical research suggests that deception detection is a flawed process with errors occurring in approximately 45% of all assessments (e.g. Bond & DePaulo, 2006).”
A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading (2008, background): “Remember Dupin’s critique that the reasoning of the Parisian police only adverted to ‘the modes in which they would have hidden [the letter]’.”
Child witness research and forensic interviews of young children: A review (2007, background): “Overall, experts, even in high stakes situations, score at chance levelwhen asked to identify liars from truth tellers (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Ekman et al., 1999; Vrij & Mann, 2001; but see Edelstein, Luten, Ekman, & Goodman, 2006).”
Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. (2007, background): “…federal law enforcement officers, federal polygraphers, robbery investigators, judges, law enforcement personnel, parole officers, and psychiatrists are no more skilled at detecting deception than the average observer (Aamodt & Custer, 2006; Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991).”
Deception detection in Russian texts (2017, background): “Psychology studies show that all types of people students, psychologists, judges, law enforcement personnel detect deception no more accurate than chance (Bond and DePaulo, 2006).”
Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked (2012, background): “After all, Bond and DePaulo (2006) have shown hat untrained judges perform only just above the level of chance nd a medium increase on that level is not overly impressive.”
Criminal versus HUMINT Interrogations: The Importance of Psychological Science to Improving Interrogative Practice (2010, neutral): “…on human lie detection performance (see Vrij, 2008) suggesting that individuals detect deception at only slightly greater than chance levels (54% on average; see Bond & DePaulo, 2006), and that trained investigators generally perform no better than naive participants (Meissner & Kassin, 2002).”
On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detection (2018, result): “formance (Figure 3a). As Figure 3a shows, human performance in control is no better than chance (51.1%). This finding is consistent with Ott et al. [60] and decades of research on deception detection [7]. Explanations alone slightly improve human performance over control, and the differences are sta”
Interviewing to detect deception (2014, background): “Yet, in the experimental condition 60% of the lies were correctly classified, which is more than typically found in this type of lie detection research (Bond & DePaulo, 2006).”
Exploring Liars' Strategies for Creating Deceptive Reports (2013, background): “…engage in a similar constructive strategy (i.e., they also report from autobiographical memory) is telling and may contribute to the overall poor performance by observers in trying to distinguish between liars and truth tellers (e.g., see Aamodt & Custer, 2006; Bond & DePaulo, 2006; & Vrij, 2000).”
Linguistic Obfuscation in Fraudulent Science (2016, methodology): “The model had good fit (χ2 = 25.18, p < .001) with a classification accuracy of 57.2%, a level consistent with human performance on deception detection (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; see Table 3).”
A Communication Researchers' Guide to Null Hypothesis Significance Testing and Alternatives. (2008, background): “Readers are referred to Cumming and Finch (2005) for a recent and accessible treatment of confidence intervals in general.”
Honest and deceptive impression management in the employment interview: : Can it be detected and how does it impact evaluations? (2015, background): “Moreover, people are better truth detectors than deception detectors (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Levine, Park, & McCornack, 1999).”