Expertise in Deception Detection Involves Actively Prompting Diagnostic Information Rather Than Passive Behavioral Observation
- Authors
- Levine, Timothy Roland; Clare, David Daniel; Blair, J. Pete; McCornack, Steve; Morrison, Kelly; Park, Hee Sun
- Issue Date
- 10월-2014
- Publisher
- OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
- Citation
- HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, v.40, no.4, pp.442 - 462
- Indexed
- SSCI
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
- Volume
- 40
- Number
- 4
- Start Page
- 442
- End Page
- 462
- URI
- https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/97277
- DOI
- 10.1111/hcre.12032
- ISSN
- 0360-3989
- Abstract
- In a proof-of-concept study, an expert obtained 100% deception-detection accuracy over 33 interviews. Tapes of the interactions were shown to N=136 students who obtained 79.1% accuracy (Mdn=83.3%, mode=100%). The findings were replicated in a second experiment with 5 different experts who collectively conducted 89 interviews. The new experts were 97.8% accurate in cheating detection and 95.5% accurate at detecting who cheated. A sample of N=34 students watched a random sample of 36 expert interviews and obtained 93.6% accuracy. The data suggest that experts can accurately distinguish truths from lies when they are allowed to actively question a potential liar, and nonexperts can obtain high accuracy when viewing expertly questioned senders.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - School of Media & Communication > School of Media & Communication > 1. Journal Articles
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.