Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Are Lie Detection Experts Myths or Rarities? A Response to On Lie Detection "Wizards" by Bond and Uysal

Maureen O'Sullivan
Law and Human Behavior
Vol. 31, No. 1 (Feb., 2007), pp. 117-123
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499519
Page Count: 7
  • More info
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Are Lie Detection Experts Myths or Rarities? A Response to On Lie Detection "Wizards" by Bond and Uysal
Preview not available

Abstract

Bond and Uysal (this issue) complain that expert lie detectors identified by O'Sullivan and Ekman (2004) are statistical flukes. They ignore one class of experts we have identified and misrepresent the procedures we use to identify the others. They also question the psychometric validity of the measures and protocol used. Many of their points are addressed in the chapter they criticize. The fruitfulness of the O'Sullivan-Ekman protocol is illustrated with respect to improved identification of expert lie detectors, as well as a replicated pattern of errors made by experts from different professional groups. The statistical arguments offered confuse the theoretical use of the binomial with the empirical use of the normal distribution. Data are provided that may clarify this distinction

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[117]
    [117]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
118
    118
  • Thumbnail: Page 
119
    119
  • Thumbnail: Page 
120
    120
  • Thumbnail: Page 
121
    121
  • Thumbnail: Page 
122
    122
  • Thumbnail: Page 
123
    123