The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of gender and modification of self-traits on measures of anonymity, social desirability, and self-monitoring to identify factors that contributed to deception in online dating.
Access to society journal content varies across our titles.
Overall, untrained people are about 53% accurate, which is only just better than chance, though a few individuals may be more astute.
Training does not necessarily improve this performance; it may even diminish it by making people over-confident.
The use of waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists is reminiscent of this procedure.
If they sank, they were declared innocent but often drowned.
In fact, they just make people more suggestible and produce “too much information”, most of it fantasy (c.f., hypnotism and torture).
Even if they worked, they are neither ethical nor legal in most civilised countries. It has been suggested that There is very little variation in people’s ability to detect lying in others (Bond & De Paulo, 2008).
Hurley and Frank (2011) showed that liars were less able to control their eyebrows and smiling than people telling the truth, while Porter and ten Brinke (2008) found that people asked to respond to emotive images with inappropriate expressions did display contrary micro-expressions.
Despite this emotional leakage, untrained observers were only slightly above chance in judging which emotional expressions were “correct”.