Summary of Timothy R. Levine's Duped , livre ebook

Everest Media LLC - Everest Media

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

48 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

Please note: This is a companion version & not the original book.
Sample Book Insights:
#1 The authors of Spy the Lie, a book about detecting lies, said that their approach was not based on scientific research, but on anecdotes and personal experience. They said that experience had taught them that their approach was highly effective. But how could they have known how many lies they had missed.
#2 The science behind lie detection is extensive and solid. People are not very good at accurately distinguishing truths from lies. However, we should not be too quick to dismiss professionals with expertise in interrogation and interviewing who believe there are ways to catch liars and detect lies.
#3 The scientific conclusion is that people are not very good at detecting lies in lie-detection experiments published prior to 2006. The research did not prove that lies cannot be detected. It showed that lies cannot be accurately detected in the type of experiments used to study lie detection.
#4 I grew up the son of a real estate salesperson, and I was interested in sales and social influence as a teenager. I knew I wanted to be a professor, and I ended up getting into the highly regarded PhD program at Michigan State University, where two leaders in persuasion were on the faculty.

Sujets

Language Arts

Disciplines

Communication Studies

Informations

Publié par	Everest Media LLC
Date de parution	12 mai 2022
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9798822507180
Langue	English
Poids de l'ouvrage	1 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0150€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

Insights on Timothy R. Levine's Duped
Contents Insights from Chapter 1 Insights from Chapter 2
Insights from Chapter 1

#1

The authors of Spy the Lie, a book about detecting lies, said that their approach was not based on scientific research, but on anecdotes and personal experience. They said that experience had taught them that their approach was highly effective. But how could they have known how many lies they had missed.

#2

The science behind lie detection is extensive and solid. People are not very good at accurately distinguishing truths from lies. However, we should not be too quick to dismiss professionals with expertise in interrogation and interviewing who believe there are ways to catch liars and detect lies.

#3

The scientific conclusion is that people are not very good at detecting lies in lie-detection experiments published prior to 2006. The research did not prove that lies cannot be detected. It showed that lies cannot be accurately detected in the type of experiments used to study lie detection.

#4

I grew up the son of a real estate salesperson, and I was interested in sales and social influence as a teenager. I knew I wanted to be a professor, and I ended up getting into the highly regarded PhD program at Michigan State University, where two leaders in persuasion were on the faculty.

#5

I have been interested in deception since I was a graduate student. I liked the fact that deception research could do better. The theory needed improvement, the methodology could be made better, and the findings could be stronger and more coherent.

#6

The four questions above are: What do people look for in order to distinguish between whether someone else is honest or lying. What, if any, specific behaviors distinguish truthful communication from lies. How accurate are people at distinguishing truths from lies.

#7

The believability markers that people look for when deciding whether to trust someone are not very strongly linked to actual lying. People are poor lie detectors, and the odds of them detecting lies are not much better than chance.

#8

People are poor lie detectors. They look for the wrong things when assessing whether someone is lying. However, there are no right things. All is hopeless. I wanted to find a new way of understanding deception that would make apparent what had been missing.

#9

The second puzzle is that of deception accuracy in research not about deception. Among my many interests is a long-held affinity for classic old experiments in social science. One well-known example is Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments on obedience to authority.

#10

The study of conformity is a good example of how experimental social science uses research confederates and other types of deception. In this study, subjects judged the lengths of lines, and when they were in groups, other group members would sometimes all give the same incorrect answer. Yet few if any of the subjects came to the conclusion that the group errors were simply lies.

#11

The first half of the book introduces readers to deception theory and research. It explains what is known about deception, how the facts are most often framed, and why TDT is needed.

#12

TDT is a modular collection of mini-theories, hypotheses, and effects. Each of the modules is briefly described, and the propositional structure weaving them together is laid out. But the detail comes in chapters 7 through 14.

#13

The four questions that define the scope of this chapter are: What do people look for in order to distinguish whether someone else is honest or lying. What, if any, specific behaviors distinguish truthful communication from lies. How accurate are people at distinguishing truths from lies.

#14

The limitations of the research are not that the findings are flawed or invalid, but that they are limited by constraints imposed by the research methods that have become conventional over time.

#15

Cues are objective, observable, and statistically associated with deception. They are specific behaviors that are thought to distinguish truths from lies. However, none of these cues correspond perfectly with the behaviors that do and do not actually differentiate honest messages from lies.

#16

The most important consideration when analyzing statistical trends or probabilistic relationships is effect size. Effect sizes tell us the strength of statistical association. In the case of deception cues, they tell us how much difference there is in the observation of the cue between truths and lies.

#17

The size of an effect size depends on how large a difference is compared to what. When conducting research, it is important to put effect sizes in context. For example, the evidence for unconscious lie detection is weaker than the accuracy obtained in the average explicit deception detection task.

#18

The definitive study on the cues that people associate with deception was done by Charlie Bond. It showed that liars avoid eye contact, are nervous, and act adaptively, which means they shift their posture, touch themselves, and talk too much.

#19

The most surprising finding in the research on deception is the degree of cross-cultural convergence. People around the world believe that nonverbal cues are the best way to tell if someone is lying, but this isn’t true.

#20

There are two meta-analyses on the cues and impressions that are associated with truth and lie judgments, and they are fairly consistent. The strongest cue affecting judgments is plausibility, and gaze avoidance loses its prominence.

#21

The honesty-deception construct is not only based on the number of cues but also on how those cues change over time. In one of my favorite studies, Henningsen and colleagues showed research subjects videotapes of mock witnesses being questioned by an attorney.

#22

The third set of cues is those that do or do not actually distinguish truths and lies. There is a set of cues that show up as statistically significant in one meta-analysis but not the others. It is hard to know what to make of these inconsistencies.

#23

The third set of cues produces a consistent lack of difference between truths and lies. Cues like eye contact, smiling, posture shifts, and speech rate show no significant differences and small effects across meta-analyses. It is scientifically safe to conclude that these behaviors do not signal honesty or deceit.

#24

The decline effect is the trend of cue effectiveness over time. As evidence accumulates, cues become weaker and weaker.

#25

The results of a recent meta-analysis were unexpected, and very provocative. The average R was. 52, which was highly significant and substantial. This translates to a percent-correct rate of 67. 9 percent. Cues do distinguish truths from lies in most studies.

#26

The findings from the cue studies show that there are always cues, but what those cues tell us changes from study to study and as research accumulates over time.

#27

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the findings of prior research on deception cues, with emphasis on conclusions drawn from meta-analysis. There are two key questions: What do people look for in order to distinguish whether someone else is honest or lying. and What, if any, specific behaviors distinguish truthful communication from lies.

#28

The Fay–Middleton experiment was the first modern deception detection experiment, and it found that 47 percent of the listeners were able to detect lies. This result was replicated over and over for the next seventy-five years.

#29

There have been many meta-analyses of deception detection accuracy, and the one I find most useful is the 2006 Bond and DePaulo meta-analysis. It summarized almost three hundred findings cumulated from 206 works involving almost 25,000 judgments of over four thousand senders.

#30

The calculation of statistical differences between observed accuracy and chance is based on the ratio of the size of the difference to the standard error of the difference. In most areas of social scientific research, individual variation is substantial, so small differences can be significant only when the sample size is large.

#31

The idea that different media have different affordances that provide access to different types of deception cues has been the most studied class of predictor variable in the deception detection accuracy literature.

#32

The thinking behind the media/modality effect and the argument that longer interview durations allow for more cues to emerge is similar to the argument for interview duration. However, interview duration is not correlated with accuracy.

#33

Cue-based approaches to deception detection predict that prior exposure to honest baseline communication should improve deception detection accuracy.

#34

The used-college-students-as-research-subjects criticism is often applied to social scientific findings, but it does not apply to deception detection experiments. The characteristics of research subjects making the judgments make little difference in accuracy.

#35

The McCornack and Parks model states that as people become closer, they become more confident in their ability to read their partners, which leads to truth-bias, or a tendency to believe their partner. This lowers accuracy.

#36

The accuracy of deception detection is also affected by the type of interaction between the sender and the judge. In general, there is little difference in accuracy between no interaction, interaction between the sender and judge, and a judge observing interaction between the sender and some other person.

#37

There have been multiple studies that have tried to train people to be better lie detectors, and all three meta-analyses have found that training significantly improves accuracy over no-training controls. However, the gains are impr