Situational familiarity, efficacy expectations, and the process of credibility attribution

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 107-127

  Reinhard, Marc Andre ^a   Scharmach, Martin ^a   Sporer, Siegfried L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^b JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859631715     PISSN: 01973533     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2012.655992     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner, 15, 6-11.
2. Akehurst, L., Koehnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons' and police officers' beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461-471. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<461::AID-ACP413>3.0.CO;2-2
3. Bauchner, J. E., Brandt, D. R., & Miller, G. R. (1977). The truth/deception attribution: Effects of varying levels of information availability. In B. R. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 229-243). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
4. Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 423-442. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01382.x
5. Bohner, G., Rank, S., Reinhard, M.-A., Einwiller, S., & Erb, H.-P. (1998). Motivational determinants of systematic processing: Expectancy moderates effects of desired confidence on processing effort. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 185-206. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199803/04)28:2<185::AID-EJSP864>3.0.CO;2-O
6. Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
7. Breuer, M. M., Sporer, S. L., & Reinhard, M.-A. (2005). Subjektive Indikatoren von Täuschung. Die Bedeutung der Täuschungssituation und Gelegenheit zur Vorbereitung [Subjective indicators of deception as a function of situation and opportunity for preparation]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 36, 189-201. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.36.4.189
8. Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
9. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought: Limits of awareness, intention, and control (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford.
10. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.
11. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford.
12. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
13. Ekman, P. (1992). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: Norton.
14. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88-106.
15. Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.913
16. Forrest, J. A., & Feldman, R. S. (2000). Detecting deception and judge's involvement: Lower task involvement leads to better lie detection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 118-125. doi:10.1177/0146167200261011
17. Forrest, J. A., Feldman, R. S., & Tyler, J. M. (2004). When accurate beliefs lead to better lie detection. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 764-780. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02569.x
18. Förster, J. (2009). Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity: How mere exposure influences level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 444-447. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.10.011
19. Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1429-1439. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1429
20. Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 486-495. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.486
21. Freedman, J. L., Adam, E. K., Davey, S. A., & Koegl, C. J. (1996). The impact of a statement: More detail does not always help. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1, 117-130.
22. Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643-659. doi:10.1037/a0023589
23. Heller, K., Gädicke, A.-K., & Weinläder, H. (1985). KFT 4-13+, Kognitiver Fähigkeits-Test. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
24. Henningsen, D. D., Cruz, M. G., & Morr, M. C. (2000). Pattern violations and perception of deception. Communication Reports, 13, 1-10.
25. Henningsen, D. D., Valde, K. S., & Davies, E. (2005). Exploring the effect of verbal and nonverbal cues on perceptions of deception. Communication Quarterly, 53, 359-375.
26. Hocking, J. E., Bauchner, J., Kaminski, E. P., & Miller, G. R. (1979). Detecting deceptive communication from verbal, visual, and paralinguistic cues. Human Communication Research, 6, 33-46. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00289.x
27. Hocking, J. E., & Leathers, D. G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective. Communication Monographs, 47, 119-131. doi:10.1080/03637758009376025
28. Kraut, R. E. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 380-391. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.380
29. Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-110.
30. Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., & Spiegel, S. (1999). Separate or equal? Bimodal notions of persuasion and a single-process "unimodel." In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process models in social cognition: A source book (pp. 293-313). New York, NY: Guilford.
31. Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Blair, J. P. (2010). (In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Human Communication Research, 36, 81-101.
32. Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (2001). Behavioral adaption, confidence, and heuristic-based explanations of the probing effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 471-502.
33. Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the "veracity effect." Communication Monographs, 66, 125-144.
34. Maier, N. R., & Thurber, J. A. (1968). Accuracy of judgments of deception when an interview is watched, heard, and read. Personnel Psychology, 21, 23-30. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1968.tb02283.x
35. Masip, J., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2009). Heuristic versus systematic processing of information in detecting deception: Questioning the truth bias. Psychological Reports, 105, 11-36. doi:10.2466/PR0.105.1.11-36
36. Miller, G. R., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Deceptive Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37. O'Sullivan, M. (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-cried-wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1316-1327. doi:10.1177/0146167203254610
38. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York, NY: Guilford.
39. Reinhard, M.-A. (2010). Need for cognition and the process of lie detection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 961-971.
40. Reinhard, M.-A., Burghardt, K., Sporer, S. L., & Bursch, S. E. (2002). Alltagsvorstellungen über inhaltliche Kennzeichen von Lügen [Laypersons' beliefs regarding content-related cues of deception]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 33, 169-180. doi:10.1024//0044-3514.33.3.169
41. Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2005). Mehr als Worte. Glaubwürdigkeitsattribution anhand nonverbaler und inhaltlicher Informationen als Funktion der Urteilsrelevanz [Beyond words: credibility attribution on the basis of nonverbal and verbal information as a function of judgment relevance]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 36, 21-32. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.36.1.21
42. Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2008). Verbal and nonverbal behaviour as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 477-488. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.012
43. Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2010). Content versus source cue information as a basis for credibility judgments: The impact of task involvement. Social Psychology, 41, 93-104. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000014
44. Reinhard, M.-A., Sporer, S. L., Scharmach, M., & Marksteiner, T. (2011). Listening, not watching: Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 467-484. doi:10.1037/a0023726
45. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC, Cohen's d and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
46. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
47. Sporer, S. L. (2004). Reality monitoring and detection of deception. In P.-A. Granhag & L. Stroemwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 64-101). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.2277/0521541573
48. Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-446. doi:10.1002/acp.1190
49. Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception. A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1
50. Stiff, J. B., & Miller, G. R. (1986). "Come to think of it... " Interrogative probes, deceptive communication, and deception detection. Human Communication Research, 12, 339-357. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00081.x
51. Stiff, J. B., Miller, G. R., Sleight, C., Mongeau, P., Garlick, R., & Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 555-564. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.555
52. Stroemwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9, 19-36. doi:10.1080/10683160308138
53. Taylor, R., & Vrij, A. (2000). The effects of varying stake and cognitive complexity on beliefs about the cues to deception. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 3, 111-123.
54. The Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60-74. doi:10.1177/0022022105282295
55. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83-95.
56. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, England: Wiley.
57. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-59). New York, NY: Academic Press.
58. Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behaviour (pp. 129-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Zuckerman, M., Koester, R., & Driver, R. E. (1981). Beliefs about cues associated with deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 6, 105-114. doi:10.1007/BF00987286