Accuracy of deception judgments
Charles Bond and Bella DePaulo meta-analysed 206 documents, covering 24,483 judges, in which people tried to tell lies from truths in real time with no special aids or training. On average people were right 54 per cent of the time, identifying 47 per cent of lies as deceptive and 61 per cent of truths as truthful. The authors also report that people are more accurate with audible than with visible lies, that individuals tend to see their conversation partners as honest, and that people who are motivated to be believed look deceptive. They propose that people judge others' lies more harshly than their own, and that this double standard may explain much of the accumulated literature.
Charles Bond and Bella DePaulo meta-analysed 206 documents, covering 24,483 judges, in which people tried to tell lies from truths in real time with no special aids or training. On average people were right 54 per cent of the time, identifying 47 per cent of lies as deceptive and 61 per cent of truths as truthful. The authors also report that people are more accurate with audible than with visible lies, that individuals tend to see their conversation partners as honest, and that people who are motivated to be believed look deceptive. They propose that people judge others' lies more harshly than their own, and that this double standard may explain much of the accumulated literature.
Written from the abstract read 2026-10-25 via the publisher record.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). 'Accuracy of deception judgments.' Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214-234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2