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 Citations (Scopus)

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

Fingerprint

Deception
Pitting
Probability Theory

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

@article{41c90904dd84483b91db482e20be5e1a,
title = "Rejoinder to Levine, Clare et al.'s Comparison of the Park-Levine Probability Model Versus Interpersonal Deception Theory: Application to Deception Detection",
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.",
keywords = "Base Rate, Deception Detection, Deception Dynamics, Interpersonal Deception Theory",
author = "Burgoon, {Judee K}",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/hcre.12065",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "327--349",
journal = "Human Communication Research",
issn = "0360-3989",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rejoinder to Levine, Clare et al.'s Comparison of the Park-Levine Probability Model Versus Interpersonal Deception Theory

T2 - Application to Deception Detection

AU - Burgoon, Judee K

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Base Rate

KW - Deception Detection

KW - Deception Dynamics

KW - Interpersonal Deception Theory

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84931007887&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84931007887&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/hcre.12065

DO - 10.1111/hcre.12065

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84931007887

VL - 41

SP - 327

EP - 349

JO - Human Communication Research

JF - Human Communication Research

SN - 0360-3989

IS - 3

ER -