You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Are Lie Detection Experts Myths or Rarities? A Response to On Lie Detection "Wizards" by Bond and Uysal
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
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Polygraph testing, Social psychology, Personality psychology, Psychometrics, Attachment behavior, Psychology, Cognitive psychology, Psychological research, Randomness, Lying
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
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
Law and Human Behavior © 2007 Springer