3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Book Chapter: not found
      Psychology and Law in Europe 

      Verbal Lie Detection

      edited-book
      ,
      CRC Press

      Read this book at

      Buy book Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this book yet. Authors can add summaries to their books on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.

          In order to facilitate comparisons across follow-up studies that have used different measures of effect size, we provide a table of effect size equivalencies for the three most common measures: ROC area (AUC), Cohen's d, and r. We outline why AUC is the preferred measure of predictive or diagnostic accuracy in forensic psychology or psychiatry, and we urge researchers and practitioners to use numbers rather than verbal labels to characterize effect sizes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Reality monitoring.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Accuracy of deception judgments.

              We analyze the accuracy of deception judgments, synthesizing research results from 206 documents and 24,483 judges. In relevant studies, people attempt to discriminate lies from truths in real time with no special aids or training. In these circumstances, people achieve an average of 54% correct lie-truth judgments, correctly classifying 47% of lies as deceptive and 61% of truths as nondeceptive. Relative to cross-judge differences in accuracy, mean lie-truth discrimination abilities are nontrivial, with a mean accuracy d of roughly .40. This produces an effect that is at roughly the 60th percentile in size, relative to others that have been meta-analyzed by social psychologists. Alternative indexes of lie-truth discrimination accuracy correlate highly with percentage correct, and rates of lie detection vary little from study to study. Our meta-analyses reveal that people are more accurate in judging audible than visible lies, that people appear deceptive when motivated to be believed, and that individuals regard their interaction partners as honest. We propose that people judge others' deceptions more harshly than their own and that this double standard in evaluating deceit can explain much of the accumulated literature.
                Bookmark

                Author and book information

                Book Chapter
                January 03 2017
                January 12 2017
                : 263-282
                10.1201/9781315317045-20
                700ba016-c01f-4f9c-b531-107252d95b96
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this book

                Book chapters

                Similar content2,377

                Cited by1