Rejoinder to Levine, Clare et al.'s Comparison of the Park-Levine Probability Model Versus Interpersonal Deception Theory: Application to Deception Detection

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Levine, Clare, Green, Serota and Park (2014) present studies intended to demonstrate that the Park-Levine probability model (PLM) better accounts for accuracy in detecting interactive deception than interpersonal deception theory (IDT). This rejoinder makes 6 points: (a) the PLM is a description not an explanation; (b) IDT and its empirical support are seriously mischaracterized; (c) application of the PLM to interactive deception is based on a faulty understanding of what constitutes interactive deception; (d) the test pitting IDT against the PLM is invalid; (e) IDT offers a rival explanation for the pattern of results; and (f) empirical data show that deception judgments covary dynamically with deceptiveness of the messages being produced. Other misstatements are also addressed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)327-349
Number of pages23
JournalHuman Communication Research
Volume41
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015

Keywords

  • Base Rate
  • Deception Detection
  • Deception Dynamics
  • Interpersonal Deception Theory

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Anthropology
  • Linguistics and Language

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Rejoinder to Levine, Clare et al.'s Comparison of the Park-Levine Probability Model Versus Interpersonal Deception Theory: Application to Deception Detection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this