A Fresh View of the Veracity Effect in Deception Research: Bond and DePaulo Re-examined

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Timothy R. Levine, Kim B. Serota
{"title":"A Fresh View of the Veracity Effect in Deception Research: Bond and DePaulo Re-examined","authors":"Timothy R. Levine, Kim B. Serota","doi":"10.1177/00936502251316927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A reanalysis of Bond and DePaulo’s meta-analysis of deception detection accuracy from the perspective of truth-default theory is reported, focusing on truth bias, the veracity effect, and the implications of the ubiquitous 50%–50% base rates used in primary experiments. Unlike Bond and DePaulo, we examine the relationships among truth bias, the veracity effect, and overall accuracy providing new insights from old data. Truth bias is substantially positively correlated ( r = .88) with accuracy for truths, negatively correlated ( r = −.88) with accuracy for lies, uncorrelated with overall accuracy ( r < .03), and functionally isomorphic with the veracity effect. When accuracies for truths and lies are reported separately, the results may reflect truth bias, message veracity, or both. Substantially improved overall accuracy would be expected with more realistic base rates and levels of truth bias. The reanalyzed data highlight insights from truth-default theory and suggest that the 54% accuracy claim needs to be contextualized.","PeriodicalId":48323,"journal":{"name":"Communication Research","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502251316927","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A reanalysis of Bond and DePaulo’s meta-analysis of deception detection accuracy from the perspective of truth-default theory is reported, focusing on truth bias, the veracity effect, and the implications of the ubiquitous 50%–50% base rates used in primary experiments. Unlike Bond and DePaulo, we examine the relationships among truth bias, the veracity effect, and overall accuracy providing new insights from old data. Truth bias is substantially positively correlated ( r = .88) with accuracy for truths, negatively correlated ( r = −.88) with accuracy for lies, uncorrelated with overall accuracy ( r < .03), and functionally isomorphic with the veracity effect. When accuracies for truths and lies are reported separately, the results may reflect truth bias, message veracity, or both. Substantially improved overall accuracy would be expected with more realistic base rates and levels of truth bias. The reanalyzed data highlight insights from truth-default theory and suggest that the 54% accuracy claim needs to be contextualized.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Communication Research
Communication Research COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Empirical research in communication began in the 20th century, and there are more researchers pursuing answers to communication questions today than at any other time. The editorial goal of Communication Research is to offer a special opportunity for reflection and change in the new millennium. To qualify for publication, research should, first, be explicitly tied to some form of communication; second, be theoretically driven with results that inform theory; third, use the most rigorous empirical methods; and fourth, be directly linked to the most important problems and issues facing humankind. Critieria do not privilege any particular context; indeed, we believe that the key problems facing humankind occur in close relationships, groups, organiations, and cultures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信