Familiarity and lie detection: A replication and extension
- 1 December 1982
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Western Journal of Speech Communication
- Vol. 46 (3) , 276-290
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318209374086
Abstract
Two studies of the relations among observer familiarity, perceived behavioral discrepancy, and judgmental accuracy in detecting deception are reported. In Study I, observers receiving either no prior exposure to baseline information on a communicator, one prior exposure, or repeated exposure made judgments of truthfulness or deceit on the part of 16 different communicators. Results indicated that observers having prior exposure to baseline information were significantly better at detecting deception, though repeated exposure did not significantly increase accuracy. In Study II, truthful baseline and potentially deceptive samples of behavior were compared and discrepancies estimated by a group of observers. Results indicated a strong and significant positive correlation between these discrepancy estimates and attributions (accurate or not) of deceit.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Perceptions of compliance‐gaining situations: A dimensional analysisCommunication Monographs, 1980
- Cues to Deception in an Interview SituationSocial Psychology, 1978
- Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978
- Nonverbal Cues as Indicators of Verbal DissemblingAmerican Educational Research Journal, 1978
- Eye contact while lying during an interviewBulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1976
- AN EXPLORATION OF DECEPTION AS A COMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTHuman Communication Research, 1974
- Hand MovementsJournal of Communication, 1972
- The Objective Use of Multiple Physiological Indices in the Detection of DeceptionPsychophysiology, 1972
- VISUAL INTERACTION IN RELATION TO MACHIAVELLIANISM AND AN UNETHICAL ACTPublished by Elsevier ,1970
- An exploratory study of pupillary responses during deception.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1943