Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 109–115 | Cite as

On Lie Detection “Wizards”

  • Charles F. BondJr.Email author
  • Ahmet Uysal

M. O’Sullivan and P. Ekman (2004) claim to have discovered 29 wizards of deception detection. The present commentary offers a statistical critique of the evidence for this claim. Analyses reveal that chance can explain results that the authors attribute to wizardry. Thus, by the usual statistical logic of psychological research, O’Sullivan and Ekman's claims about wizardry are gratuitous. Even so, there may be individuals whose wizardry remains to be uncovered. Thus, the commentary outlines forms of evidence that are (and are not) capable of diagnosing lie detection wizardry.


deception detection 


  1. Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (in press). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review.Google Scholar
  2. Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Etcoff, N., Ekman, P., Magee, J. J., & Frank, M. G. (2000). Lie detection and language comprehension. Nature, 405, 139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deception generalizes across different types of high-stakes lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1429–1439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frank, M. G., Paolantonio, N., Feeley, T. H., & Servoss, T. J. (2004). Individual and small group accuracy in judging truthful and deceptive communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2002). Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 276–289.Google Scholar
  8. Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2004). Deception detection in forensic contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I’m innocent!”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He's guilty:” Investigator bias and judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nickerson, C. A. E., & Hammond, K. R. (1993). Comment on Ekman and O’Sullivan. American Psychologist, 48, 989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  14. O’Sullivan, M. (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-cried-wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1316–1327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and deception detection: Why most people can't ‘read’ others, but a few can. In R. E. Riggio & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), Applications of nonverbal communication (pp. 215–253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 269–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  17. O’Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.Google Scholar
  18. Rosenthal, R. (1994). On being one's own case study: Experimenter effects in behavioral research—30 years later. In W. Shadish & S. Fuller (Eds.), The social psychology of science (pp. 214–229). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Vrij, A. (2001). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA
  2. 2.Middle Eastern Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations