Detecting children’s lies: Are parents accurate judges of their own children’s lies?

Talwar, Victoria; Renaud, Sarah-Jane; Conway, Lauryn

doi:10.1080/03057240.2014.1002459

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When examining participants' biases, both age groups held a truth bias for children, confirming previous findings from younger adults' veracity judgments (Chahal & Cassidy, 1994;Evans et al, 2016;Strömwall & Granhag, 2005;Talwar et al, 2015;Westcott et al, 1991); however, older adults held a significantly stronger truth bias. These findings are consistent with the positivity bias that occurs later in life in which older adults tend to favor more positive stimuli and perspectives (e.g.…”

Section: Lie-detectionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Adults tend to hold a truth bias when rating the veracity of children's statements (e.g. Evans, Bender, & Lee, 2016;Saykaly, Crossman, & Talwar, 2017;Strömwall & Granhag, 2005;Talwar, Renaud, & Conway, 2015;Westcott, Davies, & Clifford, 1991; but see Crossman & Lewis, 2006;Edelstein, Luten, Ekman, & Goodman, 2006;Masip, Garrido, & Herrero, 2004).…”

Section: Lie-detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Younger and older adults’ lie-detection and credibility judgments of children's coached reports

O’Connor

Lyon

Evans

2019

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has examined young and middle-aged adults' perceptions of child witnesses; however, no research to date has examined how potential older adult jurors may perceive a child witness. The present investigation examined younger (18-30 years, N = 100) and older adults' (66-89 years, N = 100) liedetection and credibility judgments when viewing children's truthful and dishonest reports. Participants viewed eight child interview videos where children (9-11 years of age) either provided a truthful report or a coached fabricated report to conceal a transgression. Participants provided lie-detection judgments following all eight videos and credibility assessments following the first two videos. Participants completed a General Lifespan Credibility questionnaire to assess credibility evaluations across various witness ages. Lie-detection results indicated that older adults had significantly lower discrimination scores, a stronger truth bias, and greater confidence compared to younger adults. Older adults also rated children as more competent to testify in court, credible, honest, believable, and likeable than younger adults. Participants with greater differences in their credibility evaluations for truth and lie-tellers were significantly more accurate at detecting lies. Responses to the Lifespan Credibility questionnaire revealed significant differences in younger and older adults' credibility evaluations across the lifespan.

show abstract

Section: Lie-detectionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Lie-detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Younger and older adults’ lie-detection and credibility judgments of children's coached reports

O’Connor

Lyon

Evans

2019

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, parents were slightly better at discerning true and false denials than were non‐parents. Consistent with this trend, Talwar, Crossman, Williams, and Muir (2011) found that adults who interact more with children have a slight advantage when judging their statements relative to adults who do not (see also Talwar, Renaud, & Conway, 2015). Parents certainly interact with children on a regular basis or more so than do non‐parents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Detecting children's true and false denials of wrongdoing: Effects of question type and base rate knowledge

Domagalski

Gongola

Lyon

et al. 2020

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…effect sizes ranged from -1.167 to 3.0, however the largest value was an outlier (Figure 1), specifically from the only study in which mothers judged their own children's statements. All of these were true positives, and just about every mother correctly believed their child's statement (Talwar, Renaud, & Conway, 2015). The unweighted mean percentage correct was calculated for true positives (M = 60.1%, SD = 13.54%) and true negatives (M = 53.43%, SD = 19.97%).…”

Section: Overall Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Children are left alone in a room with an exciting toy placed behind them but are explicitly told not to turn around and not to look at the toy. Upon returning, the researcher asks children whether or not they turned around and looked at the toy, a question to which a majority of children lie (Crossman & Lewis, 2006;Talwar, Renaud, & Conway, 2015). Children's responses are typically recorded on video.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting deception in children: A meta-analysis.

Gongola

Scurich

Quas

2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although research reveals that children as young as 3 can use deception and will take steps to obscure truth, research concerning how well others detect children's deceptive efforts remains unclear. Yet adults regularly assess whether children are telling the truth in a variety of contexts, including at school, in the home, and in legal settings, particularly in investigations of maltreatment. We conducted a meta-analysis to synthesize extant research concerning adults' ability to detect deceptive statements produced by children. We included 45 experiments involving 7,893 adult judges and 1,858 children. Overall, adults could accurately discriminate truths/lies at an average rate of 54%, which is slightly but significantly above chance levels. The average rate at which true statements were correctly classified as honest was higher (63.8%), whereas the rate at which lies were classified as dishonest was not different from chance (47.5%). A small positive correlation emerged between judgment confidence and judgment accuracy. Professionals (e.g., social workers, police officers, teachers) slightly outperformed laypersons (e.g., college undergraduates). Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that the child's age did not significantly affect the rate at which adults could discriminate truths/lies from chance. Future research aimed toward improving lie detection accuracy might focus more on individual differences in children's lie-telling abilities in order to uncover any reliable indicators of deception. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Detecting children’s lies: Are parents accurate judges of their own children’s lies?

Cited by 16 publications

References 48 publications

Younger and older adults’ lie-detection and credibility judgments of children's coached reports

Younger and older adults’ lie-detection and credibility judgments of children's coached reports

Detecting children's true and false denials of wrongdoing: Effects of question type and base rate knowledge

Detecting deception in children: A meta-analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About