Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 117–123 | Cite as

Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Are Lie Detection Experts Myths or Rarities? A Response to On Lie Detection “Wizards” by Bond and Uysal

Original Article

Abstract

Bond and Uysal (this issue) complain that expert lie detectors identified by O’Sullivan and Ekman (2004) are statistical flukes. They ignore one class of experts we have identified and misrepresent the procedures we use to identify the others. They also question the psychometric validity of the measures and protocol used. Many of their points are addressed in the chapter they criticize. The fruitfulness of the O’Sullivan-Ekman protocol is illustrated with respect to improved identification of expert lie detectors, as well as a replicated pattern of errors made by experts from different professional groups. The statistical arguments offered confuse the theoretical use of the binomial with the empirical use of the normal distribution. Data are provided that may clarify this distinction

Keywords

Deception Lie detection Accuracy Expertise 

References

  1. Bond, C. F. Jr., & Uysal, A. (2007). On lie detection “wizards.” Law and Human Behavior, 31(1).Google Scholar
  2. Bond, C. F. Jr., & Atoum, A. O. (2000). International deception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 385–395.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, C. F. Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (in press). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review.Google Scholar
  4. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., White, C. H., Afifi, W., & Buslig, A. L. S. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 669–685.Google Scholar
  5. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  6. Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Groot, A. (1946/1978). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton (Original work published 1946).Google Scholar
  8. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekman, P. (2001). Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. F. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 29(3), 288–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10(3), 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A. (2005). Recent advances in expertise research: A commentary on the contributions to the special issue. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, culture and activity, 5(3), 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1429–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Funder, D. (1999). Personality Judgment: A Realistic Approach to Person Perception. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of Mental Tests. Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Introduction to Psychological Measurement (2nd ed). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  23. O’Sullivan, M. (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deceit: The boy-who-cried-wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1316–1327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and detecting deception. Why most people can’t “read” others, but a few can. In Riggio, R. and Feldman, R. (Eds.), Applications of Nonverbal Communication (pp. 215–253). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In Granhag, P.A., & Strömwell, L. (Eds.), The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts (pp. 269–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wechsler, D. (1958). The Measurement of Adult Intelligence (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations