ArticleScientific reports2024
Self and other-perceived deception detection abilities are highly correlated but unassociated with objective detection ability: Examining the detection consensus effect.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From vulnerability to duplicity: Examining the connection between childhood adversity and deception.PloS one · 2025Article
- A psycholinguistic NLP framework for forensic text analysis of deception and emotion.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- The Truth-Default is Ubiquitous, but Some People Experience It More than Others.Communication research reports : CRR · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subjective lying rates are often strongly and positively correlated. Called the deception consensus effect, people who lie often tend to believe others lie often, too. The present paper evaluated how this cognitive bias also extends to deception detection. Two studies (Study 1: N = 180 students; Study 2: N = 250 people from the general public) had participants make 10 veracity judgments based on videotaped interviews, and also indicate subjective detection abilities (self and other). Subjective, perceived detection abilities were significantly linked, supporting a detection consensus effect, yet they were unassociated with objective detection accuracy. More overconfident detectors-those whose subjective detection accuracy was greater than their objective detection accuracy-reported telling more white and big lies, cheated more on a behavioral task, and were more ideologically conservative than less overconfident detectors. This evidence supports and extends contextual models of deception (e.g., the COLD model), highlighting possible (a)symmetries in subjective and objective veracity assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.