Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34456405›Full record

ArticlePolitical behavior2023

Deception Detection in Politics: Can Voters Tell When Politicians are Lying?

Kyle Mattes, Valeriia Popova, Jacqueline R Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Political behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kyle MattesFlorida International University, Miami, FL USA.
Valeriia PopovaFlorida International University, Miami, FL USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2550-0514
Jacqueline R EvansFlorida International University, Miami, FL USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we investigate voters' unaided perceptions of whether politicians are lying. We conduct an experiment in which participants attempt to uncover politicians' dishonesty by watching videos of their speeches. We find that verbal cues (specifically, the amount of detail in the speech) and general demeanor cues explain the success (failure) of veracity judgments far better than paraverbal and nonverbal cues. We also find evidence of a truth bias-people are more likely to judge statements to be true than false-despite the political setting, where voters might have been more skeptical. However, gender plays a deterministic role for veracity judgments in political context; female politicians are more likely to be judged as honest.

Indexed as

CuesDeceptionJudgementLyingPoliticiansPoliticsVeracityVoters

Identifiers

PMID34456405
PMCPMC8378529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.