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.
BondC. F.Jr.HowardA. R.HutchisonJ. L.MasipJ. (2013). Overlooking the obvious: Incentives to lie. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.764302
BurgoonJ. K. (2015). Rejoinder to Levine, Clare et al.’s comparison of the Park-Levine probability model versus interpersonal deception theory: Application to deception detection. Human Communication Research, 41, 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12065
6.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. BDillmanL.WaltherJ. B. (1995). Interpersonal Deception IV. Effects of suspicion on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Human Communication Research, 22, 163–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00365.x
7.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. B.EbesuA. S.RockwellP. (1994). Interpersonal deception: V. Accuracy in deception detection. Communication Monographs, 61, 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376340
8.
ClareD. D.LevineT. R. (2019). Documenting the truth default: The low frequency of spontaneous, unprompted veracity assessments in deception detection. Human Communication Research, 45, 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz001
9.
FayP. J.MiddletonW. C. (1941). The ability to judge truth-telling, or lying, from the voice as transmitted over a public address system. The Journal of General Psychology, 24(1), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1941.10544369
10.
HartwigM.GranhagP. A.StromwallL. A.Kronkvist0. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9
11.
LevineT. R. (2016). Examining Sender and Judge Variability in Honesty Assessments and Deception Detection Accuracy: Evidence for a Transparent Liar but No Evidence of Deception-General Ability. Communication Research Reports, 33, 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2016.1186629
LevineT. R.ClareD. D.GreenT.SerotaK. B.ParkH. S. (2014). The effects of truth-lie base rate on interactive deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 40, 350–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12027
16.
LevineT. R.DaikuY.MasipJ. (2022). The number of senders and total judgments matter more than sample size in deception-detection experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621990369
17.
LevineT. R.KimR. K.ParkH.S.HughesM. (2006). Deception detection accuracy is a predictable linear function of message veracity base-rate: A formal test of Park and Levine’s probability model. Communication Monographs, 73, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750600873736
18.
LevineT. R.ParkH. S.McCornackS. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.”Communication Monographs, 66, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376468
19.
LevineT. R.SerotaK. B.ShulmanH.ClareD. D.ParkH. S.ShawA. S.ShimJ. C.LeeJ. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01407.x
20.
McCornackS. A.LevineT. R. (1990). When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception. Communication Monographs, 57, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759009376197
21.
McCornackS. A.ParksM. R. (1986). Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. Annals of the International Communication Association, 9, 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1986.11678616
22.
MillerG. R.StiffJ. B. (1993). Deceptive Communication. Sage Publications, Inc.
23.
OrmerodT. C.DandoC. J. (2015). Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000030
24.
ParkH. S.LevineT. R. (2001). A probability model of accuracy in deception detection experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128059
25.
ParkH. S.LevineT. R.McCornackS. A.MorrisonK.FerraraM. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/714041710
26.
PastoreR. E.ScheirerC. J. (1974). Signal detection theory: Considerations for general application. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 945–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037357
27.
PaikJ. E.Van SwolL. M. (2017) Justifications and Questions in Detecting Deception. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26, 1041–1060 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-017-9536-8
28.
ReinhardM.SporerS. L.ScharmachM.MarksteinerT. (2011). Listening, not watching: Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023726
29.
SerotaK. B.LevineT. R.BosterF. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of reported deception. Human Communication Research, 36, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.x
30.
SerotaK. B.LevineT. R.Docan-MorganT. (2022). Unpacking variation in lie prevalence: Prolific liars, bad lie days, or both?Communication Monographs, 89(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2021.1985153
31.
StanislawH.TodorovN. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207704
32.
TomaC. L.BonusJ. A.Van SwolL. M. (2019). Lying online: Examining the production, detection, and popular beliefs surrounding interpersonal deception in technologically-mediated environments. In Docan-MorganT. (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication, pp. 583–601. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_31
33.
Van SwolL. M.PaikJ. E. (2017). Deciding How to Deceive: Differences in Communication and Detection Between Good and Bad Liars. Communication Quarterly, 65, 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2017.1298637
34.
ZuckermanM.DePauloB. M.RosenthalR. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). Academic Press.
