Reading Between the Lies

DesJardins, Nicole M. Lawless; Hodges, Sara D.

doi:10.1177/1948550615585829

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Study 2, the judges used DesJardins and Hodges' (2015) modification of the original coding system developed by Ickes et al (1990). This modification uses a 4-point scale that allows more variation in the “middle range” of rated empathic accuracy scores.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Couple similarity in empathic accuracy and relationship well-being

Berlamont,

Ceulemans,

Carlier

et al. 2023

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are intimate partners similar in how accurately they infer each other’s feelings and thoughts, and if so, does this similarity predict their relationship well-being? To answer this question, we analyzed data from two laboratory-based studies ( n = 155 and n = 172 couples) in which couples participated in a conflict interaction task and afterwards reported on their own feelings and thoughts and inferred those of their partner. Relationship well-being was measured on both a global (i.e., relationship satisfaction) and a situational level (i.e., post-interaction closeness and satisfaction with the outcome of the interaction). We found that intimate partners were more similar in their empathic accuracy than randomly-paired individuals. This similarity predicted the extent to which partners reported that the conflict interaction had led to a positive outcome for their relationship, but was not associated with partners’ global relationship satisfaction or their post-interaction closeness.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Couple similarity in empathic accuracy and relationship well-being

Berlamont,

Ceulemans,

Carlier

et al. 2023

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Motivation would appear to play a key role in the relationship between thoughtfeeling accuracy and prosociality. The question of whether greater motivation leads to greater accuracy has yielded mixed results, showing both improvement and impediment attributed to motivation (e.g., see Berlamont et al 2023;Ickes et al 1990;Klein and Hodges 2001;Lawless DesJardins and Hodges 2015;Simpson et al 1995;Thomas and Maio 2008). Rather than looking for a linear relationship between motivation and accuracy, where each unit increase in motivation produces a corresponding increase in accuracy, it may instead be more fruitful to think about the critical level of motivation needed to trigger attempts to infer others' thoughts and feelings.…”

Section: Motivation and Room For Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Actual and Presumed Links between Accurately Inferring Contents of Other People’s Minds and Prosocial Outcomes

Hodges,

Kezer,

Hall

et al. 2024

J. Intell.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term “empathic accuracy” has been applied to people’s ability to infer the contents of other people’s minds—that is, other people’s varying feelings and/or thoughts over the course of a social interaction. However, despite the ease of intuitively linking this skill to competence in helping professions such as counseling, the “empathic” prefix in its name may have contributed to overestimating its association with prosocial traits and behaviors. Accuracy in reading others’ thoughts and feelings, like many other skills, can be used toward prosocial—but also malevolent or morally neutral—ends. Prosocial intentions can direct attention towards other people’s thoughts and feelings, which may, in turn, increase accuracy in inferring those thoughts and feelings, but attention to others’ thoughts and feelings does not necessarily heighten prosocial intentions, let alone outcomes.

show abstract

“…Evolutionary psychology points to humans' "cheater detection" mechanisms, suggesting that survival depended in part on being able to identify liars to avoid transactions with them (Cosmides et al, 2010). Indeed, the mere suggestion that another person might be lying changes how we read their behavior (Lawless DesJardins & Hodges, 2015). Even politicians want to appear honest, although current events along with empirical investigations (e.g., Swire et al, 2017) may point to the fading importance of politicians telling the truth in the current era.…”

Section: Demerits For Lyingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Curious Case of Courtroom Liars’ Credibility

Lassetter¹,

Tenney²,

Spellman³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we evaluate people who provide false information? The current studies uncover a context in which people who intentionally lie are perceived as more credible than those who unintentionally mix up information. Across three studies (total N=1196), participants read about an incident witnessed by targets who, when queried, either lied about or mixed up information. Participants then evaluated those targets. In Study 1, we demonstrate that in a courtroom, targets who lie (versus mix up information) are judged as more credible. We next test two boundary conditions, showing that the effect may be constrained by particular contextual characteristics of a courtroom (Study 2) and that the misinformation needs to be unrelated to the information on which the target’s advice or testimony is sought (Study 3). The current research suggests that under specific circumstances, perceivers may evaluate targets who lie as more credible than those who mix up information.

show abstract

Reading Between the Lies

Cited by 10 publications

References 33 publications

Couple similarity in empathic accuracy and relationship well-being

Couple similarity in empathic accuracy and relationship well-being

Exploring Actual and Presumed Links between Accurately Inferring Contents of Other People’s Minds and Prosocial Outcomes

The Curious Case of Courtroom Liars’ Credibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About