Do people behave differently when they are lying compared with when they are telling the truth? The combined results of 1,338 estimates of 158 cues to deception are reported. Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales. They also make a more negative impression and are more tense. Their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents. However, many behaviors showed no discernible links, or only weak links, to deceit. Cues to deception were more pronounced when people were motivated to succeed, especially when the motivations were identity relevant rather than monetary or material. Cues to deception were also stronger when lies were about transgressions.

No abstract

This work examines the moderating effects of status stability, legitimacy, and group permeability on in-group bias among high- and low-status groups. These effects were examined separately for evaluative measures that were relevant as well as irrelevant to the salient status distinctions. The results support social identity theory and show that high-status groups are more biased. The meta-analysis reveals that perceived status stability, legitimacy, and permeability moderate the effects of group status. Also, these variables interacted in their influences on the effect of group status on in-group bias, but this was only true for irrelevant evaluative dimensions. When status was unstable and perceived as illegitimate, low-status groups and high-status groups were equally biased when group boundaries were impermeable, compared with when they were permeable. Implications for social identity theory as well as for intergroup attitudes are discussed.

A review of 39 studies indicated that achievement test scores decline over summer vacation. The results of the 13 most recent studies were combined using meta-analy tic procedures. The meta-analysis indicated that the summer loss equaled about one month on a grade-level equivalent scale, or one tenth of a standard deviation relative to spring test scores. The effect of summer break was more detrimental for math than for reading and most detrimental for math computation and spelling. Also, middle-class students appeared to gain on grade-level equivalent reading recognition tests over summer while lower-class students lost on them. There were no moderating effects for student gender or race, but the negative effect of summer did increase with increases in students' grade levels. Suggested explanations for the findings include the differential availability of opportunities to practice different academic material over summer (with reading practice more available than math practice) and differences in the material's susceptibility to memory decay (with fact-and procedure-based knowledge more easily forgotten than conceptual knowledge). The income differences also may be related to differences in opportunities to practice and learn. The results are examined for implications concerning summer school programs and proposals concerning school calendar changes.In 1994, the National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994) urged school districts to develop school calendars that acknowledged (a) differences in student learning and (b) the major changes taking place in American society. The report reflected a growing concern about school calendar issues on the part of local school boards, administrators, and teachers, especially as the calendar relates to students at risk for academic failure.In the early years of formal schooling in America, school calendars were designed to fit the needs of particular communities (Association of California Support for this project was provided by

A meta-analysis was conducted of research on the relation between judges' accuracy at detecting deception and their confidence in their judgments. A total of 18 independent samples revealed an average weighted accuracy-confidence correlation of .04, a relation not significantly different from zero. However, confidence was positively correlated with judges' tendency to perceive messages as truthful, regardless of the actual truthfulness of the messages. Judges were also more confident when they really were rating truths compared to when they were rating lies. Also, men were more confident than women, and judges who had a closer relationship to the message sender felt more confident in their judgments of truths and lies. Methodological and theoretical explanations for these findings are discussed.