The use-the-best heuristic facilitates deception detection

  • Bond, CF & DePaulo, BM Accuracy of misjudgments. pers. society Psychol. Rev. 10214-234 (2006).

  • Bogaard, G., Meijer, EH, Vrij, A. & Merckelbach, H. Stark but wrong: Beliefs of laypeople and police officers on verbal and non-verbal clues to deception. Plus one 11e0156615 (2016).

  • Aavik, T. et al. A world full of lies. J. Cross cult. psychological 3760-74 (2006).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Hartwig, M. & Bond, CF Why do lie catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lying judgments. Psychological Taurus. 137643-659 (2011).

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  • DePaulo, BMet al. Evidence of Deception. Psychological Taurus. 12974-118 (2003).

  • Luke, TJ Lessons from Pinocchio: Hints at deception can be grossly exaggerated. Perspective. Psychological Science. 14646-671 (2018).

  • Sporer, SL, Masip, J. & Cramer, M. Guidance for detecting deception using the Aberdeen Report judgment scales: are verbal content cues useful in detecting false accusations? Am. J Psychol. 12743-61 (2014).

    Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Weinberger, S. Airport security: intention to deceive? Nature 465412-415 (2010).

    Article CAS PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Hauch, V., Sporer, SL, Michael, SW & Meissner, CA Does training improve deception detection? A meta-analysis. commune resolution 43283-343 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Street, CNH & Richardson, DC The Focus Report: Indirect Lie Detection Doesn’t Need to Access Unconscious, Tacit Knowledge. J Exp Psychol Appl. 21342-355 (2015).

  • Gigerenzer, G. & Brighton, H. Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds draw better conclusions. Top. know Science. 1107-143 (2009).

    Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Kleinberg, B., van der Toolen, Y., Vrij, A., Arntz, A. & Verschuere, B. Automated verbal credibility assessment of intentions: the model propositional technique and predictive modelling. appl. know psychological. 32354-366 (2018).

    Read  1 veteran versus 6 rookies – GoldDerby
  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, PM & the ABC Research Group. Simple heuristics that make us smart (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Bias: Bias in judgments reveal some heuristics of reasoning under uncertainty. Science 1851124-1131 (1974).

    Article CAS PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Dressel, J. & Farid, H. The accuracy, fairness, and limitations of relapse prediction. Science. adult 4eaao5580 (2018).

    Article PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

  • Salganik, MJ et al. Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a mass scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Science. USA 1178398-8403 (2020).

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

  • Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Rev. Psychol. 62451-482 (2011).

    Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, MK & Raye, CL Reality Surveillance. Psychol. Rev. 8867-85 (1981).

  • Nahari, G., Vrij, A. & Fisher, RP Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Leg. criminol. psychological. 19227-239 (2014).

  • Lakens, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for T-Tests and ANOVAs. Front. psychological 4863 (2013).

  • Youden, WJ Index for evaluating diagnostic tests. Cancer 332-35 (1950).

    Article CAS PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Weinberger, S. Terrorist “Pre-Crime” Detector Array Tested in the United States. Nature (2011).

  • Boffey, D. “Lie Detector” System at EU Border Criticized as Pseudoscience. The guard (November 2, 2018).

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S. & Leal, S. Detection of deception through cognitive load manipulation. Trends Cogn. Science. 10141-142 (2006).

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  • Kleinberg, B., Arntz, A. & Verschuere, B. Being correct in the verbal assessment of credibility. form at PsyArXiv (2019).

    Read  Adam Scott Says ‘The Best Part’ Of The 14 ‘Severance’ Emmy Nominations Is Seeing His Cast & Crew Recognized
  • Evans, JR & Michael, SW Detection of deception in non-native English speakers. appl. know psychological. 28226-237 (2014).

  • Markowitz, DM & Hancock, JT in Handbook of language analysis in psychology (Eds. M. Dehghani & RL Boyd) 274-284 (Guilford Press, 2022).

  • Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C. & Hancock, JT Finding misleading opinion spam by any means of the imagination. In Proc. 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (eds. Lin, D et al.) 309–319 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011).

  • Rudin, C. Why Black Box Machine Learning Should Be Avoided in High-Stakes Decisions in Brief. nat. Rev. Methods Primers 281 (2022).

  • Verschuere, B., Schutte, M., van Opzeeland, S. & Kool, I. The Verifiability Approach to Deception Detection: a preregistered direct replication of the information protocol condition of Nahari, Vrij, and Fisher (2014b). appl. know psychological 35308-316 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Levine, TR, Daiku, Y. & Masip, J. The number of senders and overall ratings are more important than sample size in deception detection experiments. Perspective. Psychological Science. 17191-204 (2021).

  • Verigin, BL, Meijer, EH, Vrij, A. & Zauzig, L. The interplay of true and misleading information. Psychological crimes. Law 26367-383 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

  • Oberlader, VA et al. Validity of content-based techniques for distinguishing true from fabricated statements: a meta-analysis. law hum. Behave 40440-457 (2016).

    Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Related Articles

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Back to top button