On Lie Detection “Wizards”

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is under the model based on student judges’ lie detection accuracy that we must make the assumption outlined in the text. Under the model based on the accuracy of all earlier judges, we “predict” 29 wizards by assuming that 2,248 of the 12,000 professionals completed all of the lie detection tests. An alternative statistical analysis would treat as unknown the number of professionals who were invited to take all of the lie detection tests. Then it would use the chance probability of wizard-qualifying performances on the latter two tests to induce the number of professionals who in fact completed the test battery. Applying this alternative treatment in the context of the student judge research-based model, we “predict” 29 wizards if 114 of the 12,000 professionals completed all three tests. Obviously, our two statistical analyses yield different inferences. We ourselves regard the second analysis as more defensible—given that participants were (or were not) invited to complete the test battery based on their self-reports of a test outcome.

REFERENCES

  1. Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (in press). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review.

  2. Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Etcoff, N., Ekman, P., Magee, J. J., & Frank, M. G. (2000). Lie detection and language comprehension. Nature, 405, 139.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nickerson, C. A. E., & Hammond, K. R. (1993). Comment on Ekman and O’Sullivan. American Psychologist, 48, 989.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles F. Bond Jr..

About this article

Cite this article

Bond, C.F., Uysal, A. On Lie Detection “Wizards”. Law Hum Behav 31, 109–115 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9016-1

Download citation

KEY WORDS

  • deception detection