A Few Prolific Liars

Abstract

It has been commonplace in the deception literature to assert the pervasive nature of deception in communication practices. Previous studies of lie prevalence find that lying is unusual compared to honest communication. Recent research, and reanalysis of previous studies reporting the frequency of lies, shows that most people are honest most of the time and the majority of lies are told by a few prolific liars. The current article reports a statistical method for distinguishing prolific liars from everyday liars and provides a test of the few prolific liars finding by examining lying behavior in the United Kingdom. Participants (N = 2,980) were surveyed and asked to report on how often they told both little white lies and big important lies. Not surprisingly, white lies were more common than big lies. Results support and refine previous findings about the distinction between everyday and prolific liars, and implications for theory are discussed.

Full text

Journal of Language and Social Psychology
1 –20
© 2014 SAGE Publications
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X14528804
jls.sagepub.com
Article
A Few Prolific Liars: Variation
in the Prevalence of Lying
Kim B. Serota1 and Timothy R. Levine2
Abstract
It has been commonplace in the deception literature to assert the pervasive nature
of deception in communication practices. Previous studies of lie prevalence find that
lying is unusual compared to honest communication. Recent research, and reanalysis
of previous studies reporting the frequency of lies, shows that most people are honest
most of the time and the majority of lies are told by a few prolific liars. The current
article reports a statistical method for distinguishing prolific liars from everyday liars
and provides a test of the few prolific liars finding by examining lying behavior in the
United Kingdom. Participants (N = 2,980) were surveyed and asked to report on how
often they told both little white lies and big important lies. Not surprisingly, white
lies were more common than big lies. Results support and refine previous findings
about the distinction between everyday and prolific liars, and implications for theory
are discussed.
Keywords
lies, deception, prevalence, prolific liars, Poisson distribution
Deception and the detection of deception are extensively studied in the fields of com-
munication and psychology as well as in applied disciplines such as education, law,
and marketing. But despite a half century of theoretical development regarding the
reasons for lying, the contexts in which lying occurs, the effects of lying, and the dif-
ferent strategies that might be used to detect lying behavior, there is a dearth of research
on the extent to which lying actually occurs in daily communication. Until recently,
the most authoritative statement about lying prevalence was the DePaulo, Kashy,
1Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA
2Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Corresponding Author:
Kim B. Serota, Department of Management and Marketing, School of Business Administration, Oakland
University, 332C Elliott Hall, Rochester, MI 48309, USA.
Email: serota@oakland.edu
528804JLSXXX10.1177/0261927X14528804Journal of Language and Social PsychologySerota and Levine
research-article2014
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
Kirkendol, Wyer, and Epstein (1996) diary panel finding that on average Americans lie
once or twice per day. Serota, Levine, and Boster (2010) provided a large-scale valida-
tion of that important observation (M = 1.65 lies per day), with the addition that lies-
per-day results are not normally distributed. On any given day, based on self-report, a
majority of adults tell few or no lies while a small subset of the population reports
telling the majority of lies. Recently Halevy, Shalvi, and Verschuere (2014) correlated
self-reported lying with other measures of lying behavior, validating the use of self-
report to measure prevalence. Serota et al. (2010) observed variation by examining a
cross-section of the U.S. adult population, reporting that 5% of subjects accounted for
more than 50% of all lies told. Reanalysis of the DePaulo et al. (1996) data and several
additional studies validated this pattern of infrequent versus prolific lying. The current
study, conducted in the United Kingdom, identifies prolific liars as a distinct popula-
tion that can be statistically separated from everyday liars and provides cross-national
validation of the Serota et al. (2010) findings.
Does it matter that some people lie more than others? One aspect of interpersonal
deception theories that most researchers agree on is the influence of truth bias. Truth
bias is the tendency to believe that a sender is telling the truth independent of the mes-
sage’s actual veracity. Truth bias may be an impediment to a person’s ability to detect
lies (Buller, Strzyzewski, & Hunsaker, 1991; McCornack & Parks, 1986) and is a
primary determinant of accuracy due to a human tendency to judge more messages to
be honest than dishonest (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Levine, Park, & McCornack, 1999).
Base rate theory (Levine, Clare, Greene, Serota, & Park, in press; Park & Levine,
2001) treats truth bias as integral to determining detection accuracy. When some send-
ers tell many more lies than others, the base rate is significantly altered and the prob-
ability of an accurate judgment also changes. Knowing or assuming a sender’s
tendency toward truths or lies alters the receiver’s truth bias and will affect detection
accuracy even further. In general, the variation in base rate among everyday liars is
small, but the base rates for prolific liars can be substantially different.
Many scholars seem to believe that lying is a frequent event. Both life experiences
and anecdotal evidence encourage acceptance of this proposition. From Santa Claus
to inflated résumés to dietary supplements that will make us thin without exercising,
we encounter an entire catalogue of personal and not-so-personal lies. But finding
diversity among lies is not the same as finding that lying is ubiquitous, or even per-
vasive. General acceptance of the assumption that lying is a frequent behavior has
implications for how studies on lying and deception detection are conducted. If
everyone lied every day, then individual differences should not have much influence
on either the production or the identification of lying behaviors. However, as Serota
et al. (2010) have shown, the average is not a reliable indicator of the incidence of
individual lying.
Surprisingly little is known about the prevalence or normative frequency of lies and
deception. The majority of deception research relies on untested assumptions, anec-
dotal evidence, and a handful of studies with small and nonrepresentative samples.
Most experimental detection research has focused on improving detection with limited
attention to the nature of the phenomena though some exceptions exist. The diary
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 3
study of lying in everyday life conducted by DePaulo et al. (1996) used a small sample
of students but recruited a separate sample from members of the local community to
validate the student results. DePaulo et al. reported the mean number of lies per day as
1.96 (SD = 1.63, N = 77) for the students and 0.97 (SD = 0.98, N = 70) for the nonstu-
dent sample. DePaulo et al. also observed significant variations in the propensity to lie,
finding that lying frequency was higher among women, among younger people, and
during female-to-female interactions. In an experimental setting examining self-pre-
sentation, Feldman, Forrest, and Happ (2002) found that different rates of lying could
be induced while Tyler and Feldman (2004) found that women lie more than men with
whom they have expectations about future interactions; they also reported that women
tell more factual lies. Serota et al. (2010) found that men report telling, directionally,
more lies overall but replicated the DePaulo et al. (1996) finding that younger people
tell more lies than older people.
With regard to detecting deception, the meta-analysis by Bond and DePaulo (2006)
called into question the ability to accurately judge others’ veracity, finding that truth/
lie judgments are accurate about 54% of the time on average; these near-chance results
raised the question of whether individual differences even matter. A subsequent meta-
analysis by Bond and DePaulo (2008) indicated that there is less variability in decep-
tion detection accuracy than in the tendency to regard others as truthful. Bond and
DePaulo (2008) found that liar credibility had more to do with judgment outcome than
other individual differences. Levine et al. (2011) provided experimental evidence that
the tendency to believe a sender was more a function of individual differences in the
appearance of honesty than the actual honesty. Park and Levine (2001) hypothesized
that the critical factor in truth/lie judgment accuracy is the base rate, or proportion of
truthful statements to total statements judged, a probabilistic view that was strongly
supported by testing variation in base rates (Levine, Kim, Park, & Hughes, 2006;
Serota, 2011). In summary, research examining variations in lying phenomena sug-
gests that different kinds of people in different contexts produce different base rates of
lying, and the variation in base rate is a significant predictor of detection accuracy.
Thus, the importance of understanding the prevalence of lying and the antecedents of
that prevalence, including the categorical distinction between everyday and prolific
liars, cannot be understated.
Can we trust subjects to tell the truth about lying? Serota et al. (2010) used projec-
tive measures of others’ lies to validate prevalence of self-reported lies. More recently,
Halevy et al. (2014) substantiated the utility of self-reporting lies. The authors repli-
cated Serota et al. with a Dutch sample and then correlated the results with actual lying
when subjects were given a task that incentivized them to break rules for personal
financial gain. A subset of survey participants who self-reported lying incidence sub-
sequently completed a Die Under Cup task (Shalvi, Dana, Handgraaf, & Dreu, 2011)
in which they could cheat privately. The distribution of reported die roll outcomes
skewed to higher than expected levels, indicating that some cheating took place. Those
with higher self-reported lying scores also reported higher die roll outcomes (r = .39,
p < .01); therefore, those who report more daily lying are more likely to engage in a
higher level of deceptive behavior.
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
In the few studies focusing on lie prevalence, researchers have examined the phe-
nomenon primarily within an American context.1 It is therefore reasonable to ask if the
findings are culturally specific. If the division of the population between infrequent
liars and prolific liars can be generalized across countries and cultures, the importance
of accounting for this individual difference would be elevated.
The Current Study
Shortly after publication of Serota et al. (2010), The Science Museum of London
issued a press release, “Mum’s Most Likely to Be Lied to Shows New Poll” (The
Science Museum, 2010). The release was issued to promote the museum’s “Who Am
I?” exhibition on human behavior. It cited a study of approximately 3,000 British
adults and reported, among its notable findings, that men lie more than women, peo-
ple lie more to their mothers than to their partners, and most people believe there is
such a thing as an acceptable lie. Intrigued by the potential to examine the character-
istics of prolific liars and for cross-national validation of the prevalence research
conducted in the United States, the current authors requested, received, and reana-
lyzed the U.K. data.
Two characteristics of this data set allow findings of the U.S. studies to be extended.
First, the large sample size and additional attitudinal and behavioral data collected in
the United Kingdom are sufficient to develop a profile of prolific liars and contrast this
with the general population of everyday liars. Second, the study provides an interna-
tional replication of the Serota et al. (2010) U.S. national survey. Comparing results
from participants in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to results from
the American sample could help to determine if the key finding from the U.S. study
regarding the distribution of lying activity can be generalized. We hypothesized that
the U.K. results would replicate the U.S. prolific liar findings. The primary research
questions focused on (a) the characteristics of the prolific liar and (b) whether their
lying behavior is more prevalent overall or is constrained to specific situations and
contexts.
Method
Participants. To examine the extent and nature of lying in the United Kingdom, The
Science Museum of London commissioned an Internet survey using the OnePoll
omnibus panel of adults distributed across four major subdivisions of the United King-
dom. The omnibus Internet panel is a commercial survey research tool used for multi-
client studies. OnePoll is a member of ESOMAR (European Society for Opinion and
Market Research), and the organization subscribes to both the MRS (Market Research
Society) code of conduct and ESOMAR standards to assure confidentiality, ethical
practices, and sound research procedures.
Panelists are voluntary participants, 16 years and older, who have self-selected into
a pool of approximately 80,000 panel members. Since the Serota et al. (2010) study
was conducted among adults 18 years and older, reanalysis of the U.K. study for
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 5
comparison purposes was restricted to those 18 years and older (note that including
16- to 17-year-olds increases the overall frequency of lying but does not alter other
findings from the analysis). On registering for the panel, subjects provide demographic
information that is merged with the results of individual surveys. The Science Museum
lying study was conducted in April 2010 and was open to a general cross section of the
panel; participation was not constrained to a nationally projectable subset and 3,042
subjects responded. For the reanalysis, the sample was poststratification weighted
(Kish, 1965) to the U.K. Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2009 mid-year popula-
tion estimates (ONS, 2010). The weighting factors were age group by gender by geog-
raphy (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the nine Government Office Regions of
England). After eliminating responses from 16- and 17-years-olds, the reanalysis
included 2,980 subjects.
After weighting to ONS census parameters, the sample composition for this analy-
sis is 51.7% female, the mean age is 44.5 years (SD = 15.1 years), and the subjects are
geographically distributed to match the United Kingdom’s regional population disper-
sion: 83.8% from England (12.5% in London), 8.5% from Scotland, 5.4% from Wales,
and 2.8% from Northern Ireland.2
Design. The Science Museum study was nonexperimental and used an online ques-
tionnaire to obtained descriptive measures for the incidence of lying in the United
Kingdom adult population. Results from this survey are compared across the major
U.K. geographic divisions, by age-groups, gender, and prolific versus everyday liars.
Procedure and Measures. Results reported in this article are a reanalysis of The Science
Museum study. OnePoll conducts up to 15 projects per day. To recruit subjects, the
individual survey is posted in a panel member area of the OnePoll website. OnePoll
members are expected to monitor the website for available surveys (rather than receiv-
ing specific survey invitations). On the website, panel members are instructed to select
a survey and voluntarily click a link and are then redirected to the specific survey
questionnaire. Subjects participating in the lying study were entered into a sweep-
stakes for a cash prize.
The intent of the questionnaire was to assess the nature of lying as social interac-
tion; key behavioral measures included frequency of “white lies” and “big lies.” These
self-reports differ from the Serota et al. (2010) measure in three ways. First, U.K. lies
are disaggregated into white and big lies, based on an assumption that liars distinguish
between acceptable and egregious lies. Second, lying was not defined for the subjects
(as was done in the U.S. study); however, the subjects were asked to identify lies they
believed to be examples of big lies. Third, the frequency of lying scales are different.
Whereas the U.S. study used an unbounded ratio scale, in the U.K. study the underly-
ing ratio scale was presented as closed-ended categories. Subjects could answer pre-
cisely from 0 to 5 lies, then at intervals of 5 lies up to 25+. Treatment of this scale for
our analysis is discussed in the Results section. The questionnaire also asked about
people the subject had lied to, the kinds of lies told, guilt, and the consequences for
getting caught lying. Attitudinal measures included perceptions of what constitutes a
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
big lie, the relative abilities of men and women to produce and detect lies, acceptabil-
ity of lies, and the appropriateness of lie detection in several contexts. The complete
list of questions is shown in the appendix.
Results
Overall Lie Prevalence. Initially, the overall frequencies of lies in the United Kingdom
and its subdivisions were calculated and compared. The U.K. study asked subjects,
“On average, how many times a day do you tell a little white lie?” and separately, “On
average, how many times a day do you tell a big lie?” Although lie frequency is
reported as a ratio-scaled measure, subject responses were limited to the categorical
set of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25+ times for each question. We treated the results
as approximating the underlying ratio scale by assuming that error in reporting (e.g.,
reporting 10 when the subject believed the actual value to be 9 or 11) was normally
distributed. The value 25 was substituted for the few 25+ responses, slightly understat-
ing the average. U.K. subjects reported M = 1.66 white lies per day (SD = 2.37, Mdn =
1, mode = 1, N = 2,980; and 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.56, 1.74]) and M = 0.41
big lies per day (SD = 1.83, Mdn = 0, mode = 0, N = 2,980, and 95% CI [0.35, 0.47]).
Overall, 75.5% reported telling white lies and 20.7% reported telling big lies on an
average day. Figure 1 compares the distributions of white lies and big lies.
To create a total, white lies and big lies were combined (M = 2.08 lies per day,
SD = 3.57, Mdn = 1, mode = 1, N = 2,980; 95% CI [1.95, 2.21]). Serota et al. (2010)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
012345 10 15 20 25
Number of Lies/Day
Frequency (%)
White Lies
Big Lies
24.5
36.6
20.9
8.6
3.83.71.30.10.10.5
80.3
14.1
2.31.21.00.30.20.10.10.4
Figure 1. The frequencies of white lies and big lies in the United Kingdom.
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 7
reported that the frequency distribution of lies (excluding those reporting no lies) fit a
power function, a long tail curve with high frequencies for low values and a few
responses for very high values. Figure 2 shows a similar curve fit for the United
Kingdom, with y = 44.987 * x−1.337 and R2 = .962. Visual inspection reveals that the
curve fit of the overall U.K. data and that of the U.S. data are nearly identical. Although
the United Kingdom is a unified political entity, its political subdivisions have histori-
cally distinct cultural traditions that may include different norms and moral standards.
Since England accounts for 83.4% of the U.K. population, results from subjects in
England should not vary much from the overall results; however, results from Scotland,
Wales, and Northern Ireland might yield greater variation. As Table 1 shows, only
Northern Ireland (M = 3.50, SD = 6.98) has a lie frequency for which the 95% CI does
not overlap.
Identifying Prolific Liars. As data from all of the prevalence studies and analyses show,
lying is generally a low frequency event with the exception that, in each of the popula-
tions studied, there appears a small proportion of high-frequency liars. The incidence,
or number of lies per day, is a rate. When events are independent, measured as a rate,
occur with low frequency over a specified unit of time, and have no obvious upper
limit, these events have the properties of a Poisson distribution (Doane & Seward,
2008). The Poisson distribution is often referred to as “the model of rare events” or
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
y = 44.987 * x^-1.337 U. K.
y = 38.282 * x^-1.246 U. S.
0
50
0102030405
06
0
Number of Lies/Day
Frequency (%)
y = 44.987 * x^-1.337 U. K.
y = 38.282 * x^-1.246 U. S.
Figure 2. Power functions for total U.K. and U.S. liars are nearly identical.
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
“the model of arrivals.” Sending and receiving messages (including lies) is a form of
arrival though this model is rarely used in the social sciences.
The Poisson distribution has only one parameter, the mean (λ = µ, which must be
known), and all other properties are a function of the mean; specifically, when a vari-
able is Poisson distributed, variance is equal to the mean and the standard deviation is
the square root of the mean. The result is a positively skewed distribution when λ is
small but has the tendency to approximate a normal distribution as λ increases. The
index of dispersion (D = σ2/µ), also known as the variance to mean ratio, can be used
to decide if data fit a Poisson distribution. If D > 1 the data are considered overdis-
persed; if D < 1 (but not 0) the data are most likely normally distributed, and if D ≈ 1,
the data are considered to fit a Poisson distribution (Cox & Lewis, 1966). As is appar-
ent from Table 1 comparing political subdivisions with the U.K. total, the standard
deviations are, in all cases, greater than the mean; and therefore, the index of disper-
sion values also will be much greater than 1.0 when everyday and prolific liars are
treated as a single population.
A theory of prolific liars considers those outside the realm of everyday liars to be
a distinct group (i.e., they violate the Poisson assumptions of low frequency) that
should be treated as a separate population. Once prolific liars are excluded, the D
index value for the remaining, nonprolific sample should approximate 1.0. By suc-
cessive trials, removing the highest numbers of lies from the distribution and decre-
menting the lowest “extreme” value with each trial, the D index is reduced until D =
1 is reached and a break point is established. With the U.K. data, a value of D = 0.97
(≈1) is obtained when the sample is constrained to those telling 0 to 4 lies (M = 1.31,
normal SD = 1.129, Poisson SD = 1.145, N = 2,691). The excluded subjects then
form the distinct group of individuals who tell five or more lies per day (M = 9.18
SD = 7.97, N = 289); these prolific liars constitute 9.7% of the U.K. sample. Figure 3
shows the relationship between everyday liars, prolific liars, and the Poisson distri-
bution for λ = 1.31 (mean of everyday liars’ reported lies per day). The distribution
of everyday liars fits the Poisson distribution with R2 = .98 while the prolific liars fit
a standard power function, y = 1681.7 * x−3.81, with R2 = .97. Fitting everyday liars
to a Poisson distribution allows us to define the boundary between everyday and
prolific lying.
Table 1. Mean Lies for the United Kingdom and Major Political Subdivisions.
Total lies Component means
N
95% Confidence
intervalCountry M SD White lies Big lies
England 2.01 3.30 1.61 0.40 2498 [1.88, 2.14]
Wales 2.02 3.23 1.63 0.38 145 [1.49, 2.55]
Scotland 2.28 4.44 1.88 0.41 254 [1.73, 2.83]
Northern Ireland 3.50 6.98 2.62 0.88 83 [2.35, 4.65]
United Kingdom 2.08 3.57 1.66 0.41 2980 [1.95, 2.21]
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 9
Comparing Prolific and Everyday Liars. Who are the prolific liars? They are younger, are
more likely to be male, and have higher occupational status. In the United Kingdom,
prolific liars are significantly younger, M = 39.3 years (SD = 14.75, N = 289), than
everyday liars, M = 45.1 years (SD = 15.04, N = 2691), with t(2,978) = −6.25, p < .001,
d = 0.39. Prolific liars are significantly more likely to be male (58.8%) when compared
to everyday liars (47.2% male) with χ2 = 14.04 (degrees of freedom [df] = 1, p < .001,
φ = .069). More U.K. prolific liars are from Northern Ireland, 5.9% versus 2.5% of the
everyday liars, χ2 = 11.34 (df = 1, p < .005, φ = .062) but are less likely to come from
England, 79.5% versus 84.3% of everyday liars, χ2 = 4.89 (df = 1, p < .05, φ = .040).
The differences were not significant for subjects from Scotland and Wales. Prolific
liars are much more likely to work in business professional and technical occupations
(23.5% vs. 14.1% of everyday liars), χ2 = 18.08 (df = 1, p < .001, φ = .078). With the
exception of age, most of these variables had effect sizes that are relatively small,
evidence that significance of the test statistics may be driven by the study’s very large
sample size.
Prolific liars are less likely to see lying as a behavior that people grow out of as they
age. Asked “when do you tell the most lies,” prolific liars are more likely to say as a
young adult (31.8% vs. 17.8% of everyday liars) or middle-aged adult (11.1% vs.
7.2%); they are less likely to say as a child (15.2% vs. 27.0%) or teenager (40.8% vs.
47.2%), χ2 = 48.52 (df = 4, p < .0001, φ = .128). The Science Museum (2010) reported
that “Mum” is the person most likely to be lied to, and this is supported by results from
0
1
2
3
4
510152025303540455055
Number of Lies/Day
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
01234
Frequency (%)
Poisson Function
Everyday Liars
Prolific Liars
Frequency (%)
Figure 3. Distributions of the theoretical Poisson function, everyday liars, and prolific liars.
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
everyday liars (23.2%); however, only 14.9% of prolific liars cite their mother as the
leading target of their lies. Prolific liars are more likely to lie most to their partner
(18.7% vs. 14.3%) and their children (12.5% vs. 6.4%), χ2 = 42.90 (df = 10, p < .0001,
φ = .120). Occupationally, prolific liars are more likely to be found among managers
and supervisors (11.9%) than among workers (7.9%); χ2 = 3.93 (df = 1, p < .05, φ =
.053). Notably, among workers there is no significant variation by age, but among
management those 55 years and older (16.4%) are more like to be prolific liars than
18- to 34-year-old managers (11.1%) or 35- to 54-year-old managers (10.1%), χ2 =
6.84 (df = 2, p < .05, φ = .079).
Prolific liars are less inhibited about lying. Although the difference is not large,
prolific liars are significantly more likely to believe that there is such a thing as an
acceptable lie (21.8% vs. 17.1% of everyday liars), χ2 = 3.99 (df = 10, p < .005, φ =
.037). Table 2 reports situations in which prolific and everyday liars believe it is okay
to tell a lie. More than 70% of U.K. adults say that it is okay to lie in order to protect
someone or avoid hurt feelings; however, prolific liars are less likely to be concerned
about hurt feelings (72.3% vs. 80.1%). Prolific liars are more likely to approve lying
to protect a secret (50.0% vs. 38.3%) or when a child wants something he or she can-
not have (40.8% vs. 28.1%).
Prolific liars are more likely to experience the consequences of lying. Among pro-
lific liars, 19.7% reported being “dumped” because they lied to their partner versus
5.2% of everyday liars, χ2 = 89.13 (df = 1, p < .005, φ = .173). At work, 13.1% of
prolific liars (vs. 1.5% of everyday liars) had been “sacked” and 10.0% (vs. 2.5% of
everyday liars) had been reprimanded for lying, χ2 = 189.34 (df = 2, p < .005, φ = .252).
There is little difference between the two groups with regard to feelings of guilt; 28.6%
of prolific liars report ever feeling guilty after telling a lie whereas 26.8% of the every-
day liars express the same feeling, χ2 = 0.44 (df = 1, ns).
Table 2. Situations in Which Prolific and Everyday Liars Consider It Acceptable to Lie.
Situation
Everyday
liars
Prolific
liars
χ2: N = 2,980,
df = 1 pω
To save hurting
someone’s feelings
80.1 72.3 9.59 <.005 0.057
To protect someone 70.3 72.7 0.70 ns NA
When you don’t like
someone’s gift
53.3 54.4 0.14 ns NA
To stop someone finding
out a secret
38.8 50.0 13.80 <.001 0.068
When a child wants
something he or she
can’t have
28.1 40.8 20.56 <.001 0.083
Other situations (open-
ended responses)
2.5 0.3 5.29 <.05 0.042
Note. df = degrees of freedom; ns = nonsignificant; NA = not applicable.
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 11
Although prolific and everyday liars are classified on the basis of the total num-
ber of lies, there are large differences in their tendencies to tell both big lies and little
white lies. Prolific liars report telling M = 6.32 little white lies per day (SD = 5.03,
N = 294) whereas everyday liars report M = 1.16 white lies (SD = .96, N = 2656);
results of a one-way analysis of variance show F(1, 2949) = 2117.31, p < .001, par-
tial η2 = .423. Similarly, prolific liars report M = 2.86 big lies per day (SD = 5.12,
N = 294) whereas everyday liars report only M = 0.15 big lies (SD = .42, N = 2656);
the one-way analysis of variance result for big lies is F(1, 2949) = 709.45, p < .001,
partial η2 = .194.
Differences between the two lie measures are most apparent when considered as
ratios. Prolific liars tell more white lies and more big lies than do everyday liars.
Although the prolific to everyday liar ratio for white lies is a substantial 5.5 to 1, the
ratio for big lies is an even more striking 19.1 to 1. Table 3 shows the kinds of lies
that U.K. subjects consider big lies. Asked to classify a list of possible lies as big or
not, U.K. adults tend to consider lying to a loved one as most onerous; lying about
love (69.2%), lying to a partner about who you have been with (66.7%), and lying to
a partner about where you have been (61.3%) are the most frequently cited big lies.
There is general agreement between prolific and everyday liars with regard to what
constitutes a big lie. Only two exceptions were reported: Prolific liars are less likely
to consider it a big lie to call in sick when feeling fine (45.0% vs. 51.5% of everyday
liars) or lie about whether or not someone is liked (25.6% vs. 32.9% of everyday
liars).
Table 3. Lies Considered to Be “Big” Lies by Everyday and Prolific Liars.
Big lies
Everyday
liars
Prolific
liars
χ2: N = 2,980,
df = 1 p ω
Whether or not you love someone 69.4 67.2 0.59 ns NA
Not telling your partner who you
have really been with
66.4 69.0 0.76 ns NA
Not telling your partner where you
have really been
61.2 61.9 0.05 ns NA
Calling in sick when you feel fine 51.5 45.0 4.44 <.05 0.039
Whether you like someone or not 32.9 25.6 6.44 <.05 0.046
How much you have spent on
something
22.2 17.3 3.74 ns NA
Pretending you were too busy to
take a call
14.1 15.2 0.27 ns NA
Saying you haven’t had that much to
drink when you really have
13.2 11.4 0.74 ns NA
Telling someone they look good
when they don’t
7.4 8.3 0.31 ns NA
Other lies (open-ended responses) 1.0 1.0 0.00 ns NA
Note. df = degrees of freedom; ns = nonsignificant; NA = not applicable.
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
Discussion
This article reports the analysis of a large-scale survey of lie prevalence in the
United Kingdom. In addition to replicating previous findings from the United
States, the data provide insight into the differences between prolific liars and every-
day liars. The most notable findings are that lying is a less frequent occurrence than
one might assume from reading most deception research and that the frequency of
lying is not normally distributed across the population. As in the United States,
most people in the United Kingdom report lying relatively infrequently, and most
lies are relatively benign. Nonetheless, a few prolific liars have deceptive behavior
that is both more pronounced (more big lies) and riskier in terms of the conse-
quences of being caught.
Previous research conducted in the United States reports that people tell, on aver-
age, between 1 and 2 lies per day. In the United Kingdom the number is slightly higher
at about 2 lies per day. Although the frequency of lies above 5 lies per day is measured
differently in the U.K. and U.S. studies, 94% of the U.K. sample and 92% of the U.S.
sample told lies in the 0 to 5 lie range. Within this range, the U.K. mean is 1.46 lies per
day or more than double the U.S. mean of 0.70 (for those reporting more than 5 lies,
the U.K. and U.S. means were 11.76 and 12.71 respectively). Given that the U.K. scale
will tend to understate the number of lies by prolific liars, the cross-national compari-
son of lower frequency lying provides some evidence that, normatively, lying is more
prevalent in the United Kingdom than in the United States.3
Approximately 80% of the U.K. lies were little white lies; the overall average num-
ber of big lies was only 0.41 per day. Asking respondents to report both big lies and
white lies may partially explain the higher rate of lying reported in the current data.
The findings also indicate some cultural variation. Within the United Kingdom, those
in England (especially outside of London) tend to tell fewer lies than the average; in
Scotland and Wales, the rate of lying is near the U.K. average; in Northern Ireland, the
region most culturally and socially distinct from the U.K. mainstream, the overall rate
of lies per day is significantly higher.
As with previous studies of lie prevalence, the data were not normally distributed.
The nonnormal nature of the distribution makes interpretation of the mean potentially
misleading because the average number of lies per day does not reflect the average
person. As a central tendency the mean is sensitive to extreme scores, and the exis-
tence of a few prolific liars can substantially inflate the mean. The typical (nonprolific)
U.K. respondent reported just over 1 white lie per day and only 0.15 big lies per day
(or about once per week).
Inflation of the mean is not trivial. Serota et al. (2010) attributed this underlying
long-tailed distribution to the apparent differences between prolific liars and the rest
of the population. Making this observation required separating the liars from the non-
liars (those reporting no lies) to calculate and compare the power functions of those
who did report telling lies. However, telling no lies on a given day is a valid event for
which the analysis should account. A large proportion of the sample report not lying
(24.4% in the U.K. data, 59.9% in the U.S. data).4
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 13
One alternative is to treat prolific liars as a separate population distinct from every-
day or less frequent liars. Recognizing that telling lies (a) consists of independent
events, (b) measured as a rate that expresses the frequency at which lying occurs in a
fixed period of time, (c) is for most people a low-frequency event, and (d) has no
defined upper limit, everyday lying behavior can be modeled according to the theoreti-
cal Poisson distribution. The Poisson arrival model accounts for rare or infrequent
events (even the substantial number reporting no events), but it cannot be used when
there are more than a few instances where a high rate of the event occurs. As the U.K.
data show, there is a break point in the distribution of lying where the pattern of events
changes and the distributions on either side of the break point are observably different.
The distribution differences indicate two distinct populations that behave differently.
As Figure 3 illustrates, the majority report lying rates that are Poisson distributed. But
there are too many extreme values for the total sample to be Poisson distributed. By
varying the break point, applying the index of dispersion, and testing for goodness of
fit, the point at which the incidence of lying changes from a normative behavior to an
excessive or prolific behavior can be identified. Everyday, infrequent liars very pre-
cisely fit the Poisson distribution; the incidences of lying by prolific liars fit a standard
power function starting just above the break point.
In the United Kingdom, the average adult tells 2.08 lies per day, which, as the
analysis shows, is a nearly meaningless statistic. But the Poisson break point analysis
indicates that telling between 0 and 4 lies per day is both normative of the general
population (in the United Kingdom) and consistent with the theoretical distribution of
relatively low-incidence events. It also indicates that beyond the break point, lying
occurs at abnormally high rates, and consistent with the long-tailed distribution, as this
population grows large the likelihood of observing extremely aberrant behavior
increases.
Notably, cultural differences with regard to normative lie behavior also become
clearer when prolific liars are separated from everyday liars using the break point
procedure. As a test, the approach was applied to the U.S. data collected by Serota et
al. (2010). The boundary for both the U.K. and U.S. samples fall within that part of the
response range that can be compared, more or less, directly (0-5 lies); therefore we are
comfortable about making this comparison. In the United States, the break point for
dividing the populations is much lower than in the United Kingdom; telling 0 to 2 lies
per day appears acceptable as an everyday occurrence (M = 0.39, normal SD = 0.670;
Poisson SD = 0.624, N = 830); the rate of 3 or more lies per day fall outside the accept-
able range and is classified as prolific (M = 7.91 lies, SD = 8.282, N = 168). With 0 to 4
lies considered the acceptable level for everyday lies in the United Kingdom, the dif-
ference between the means of everyday liars is substantial (MUS = 0.39 vs. MUK = 1.31)
and statistically significant, t(3,519) = 35.898, p < .001, d = 0.991. The cross-national
difference between the means of the nonnormative prolific liars (MUS = 7.91 vs.
MUK = 9.18) is not significant, t(455) = 1.603, nonsignificant, although it is likely that
the mean for prolific liars in the United Kingdom is understated.
The questions asked in this study provide some clues with regard to the differences
between everyday liars in the general population and those who lie prolifically. Everyday
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
liars in the United Kingdom report telling, on average, just over one little white lie
daily, and at the fractional rate reported, they tell one big lie only about once a week.
Most people in the general adult population are likely to approve of a lie told in order
to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. Everyday liars do not necessarily abstain from
lying, perhaps because they have learned the negative effect of too much honesty
through early socialization. They rarely report that trouble at work or in their personal
life has been caused by deception. Everyday and infrequent liars indicate that lying is a
behavior they practiced on a more frequent basis when they were younger; as they have
matured, presumably they learned other, more effective methods of communication.
In contrast to the once-a-week big lie rate of the everyday liars, prolific liars tell
almost three big lies a day; this is in addition to the six white lies they tell on an aver-
age day. Prolific liars are more likely to approve of lying to protect a secret or avoid
giving in to the whims of children. Whereas most everyday liars say they have reduced
the rate of lying from that experienced early in life, prolific liars stretch their lying
behavior on into adulthood. Their dishonesty permeates from business situations to
personal relationships. At work, they are 4 times more likely than the rest of the popu-
lation to have been reprimanded for lying and almost 9 times more likely to have been
fired for their dishonest behavior. Prolific liars are also 4 times more likely to report
losing a partner because of their lying habits. Even so, prolific liars express no more
guilt than everyday liars; 29% of prolific liars report feeling guilt after telling a lie,
27% of everyday liars expressing the same feeling. This distinction between prolific
liars (high frequency–low guilt) and everyday liars (low frequency–low guilt) sup-
ports the finding that prolific and everyday liars are different populations that need to
be examined separately.
Limitations and Future Research
The current study provides a method, Poisson break point analysis, for distinguishing
prolific liars from everyday liars and adds important insights into the nature of prolific
liars. However, there are several limitations to be considered. First, cross-national
comparisons have to be qualified; the U.K. data were not measured in a way that is
entirely consistent with data collected in the United States. Second, to achieve some
consistency between the sample and the population being represented, the data were
weighted to population parameters. Finally, the recurring criticism that self-reporting
raises also may be directed to this study.
Consistency. Scale differences between the U.K. study and studies conducted in the
United States raise questions of comparability. First, studies in the United States have
focused on reports of actual behavior in a fixed time period (typically the past 24
hours). The U.K. study asked subjects to estimate their “average” daily behavior. An
individual’s most recent experience may not be the same as his or her usual or typical
behavior. To compare the results, we have to rely on an assumption that the variation
in behaviors over time is normally distributed around an individual’s mean behavior
even though the data tell us that the behavior itself is not normally distributed across
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 15
the population. As sample sizes increase, we expect the errors in reporting for a spe-
cific time period will average out and the central tendency will approach that reported
directly as the average behavior response.
Second, the U.K. study used a scale with prescribed closed-ended responses.
Although the rate of lying is inherently a ratio scale, as the number of lies increased
above 5 lies, subjects were forced to report in multiples of 5 lies. At very low rates
(which are most of the responses) the scale is accurate, but as the rate of lying increases,
subjects had to approximate their answers, and for those with very high rates the scale
was bounded by a maximum response value of 25+ lies per day. The total U.K. lies are
also an additive combination of white lies and big lies. However, it should be noted
that the question developed by Serota et al. (2010) and used by others is also an addi-
tive combination of categories (direct vs. mediated communication and five levels of
receiver relational closeness).Treating the target behavior as separate activities may
inflate the results. Future cross-national and cross-cultural research should strive for
directly comparable measures of lying behavior.
Weighting. Data collection was done using an online consumer panel. To generalize
from the convenience sampling that the panel method relies on, the sample is stratified
and population weighting is applied to the results. The sample was substantially
younger and there were more females than in the actual U.K. population. Nonetheless,
most (but not all) of the strata weights were within the limits of acceptable practice.
The unweighted mean number of lies per day is M = 2.34 (normal SD = 3.69, 95% CI
[2.20, 2.48]). Although higher than the 2.08 lies per day in the weighted sample, the
difference is not unexpected since age is the measure most strongly associated with
different rates of lying and the weighting procedure raised the age, placing it in line
with the U.K. census.
Self-Reporting of Lies. In general, prevalence studies have relied on self-report; this
U.K. study is no different. The question often asked is, “How do you know the subjects
are not lying [about the extent to which they lie]?” This study was not administered by
the authors and did not include validation measures. However, other studies support
the validity of using self-report. Serota et al. (2010) tested the self-report results
against projective questioning about others’ lies and found self-reported data agreed
fairly well with the projective data. Halevy et al. (2014) provided a direct comparison
of self-reported lies and lying behavior, confirming that self-reports correlate with
behavioral measures. Within the U.K. study, comparison of measures of white lies and
big lies provides some confidence that the self-report results are logical and the sub-
jects appear to be forthcoming. Furthermore, social desirability bias was limited; sub-
jects were assured anonymity, and there was little about this study that serves as a
motivation to lie about one’s own behavior. However, future studies in this area should
include measures with which to establish convergent and divergent validity.
Future Research. The results of this study provide substantial evidence that prolific
liars are a distinctly different population from the general population. A small amount
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

16 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
of lying seems to be acceptable and normative, often undertaken with good intentions
and despite the concern by Bok (1999) that even well-intentioned lies constitute a
slippery slope. However, the prolific liar is not only a more aggressive practitioner,
he or (to a lesser extent) she navigates with a different moral compass. The prolific
liar is more likely to risk endangering relationships and to experience the conse-
quences of deceptions at home and in the work place. This leads to several specific
research recommendations: (a) Those studying lying behavior should strive to account
for or control differences between prolific and everyday liars, (b) cross-cultural stud-
ies should be extended to a more diverse cultural set, and (c) observed differences
indicate a need for more formal study of the motivations and attitudes related to lying
frequency.
Conclusion
This study of lying in the United Kingdom provides substantial support for the U.S.
findings reported previously by Serota et al. (2010). The overall results validate other
research showing that most people tell very few lies but a few people are prolific with
their lying behavior. The study also provides strong evidence that the tendency toward
lying is inversely correlated with age. In the debate over who lies more, the U.K. data
also support the argument that in general, men lie more than women. These result help
put everyday lying into perspective; it is normal for people to tell a few lies, and many
lies are minor transgressions or simply efforts to avoid being hurtful. These data pro-
vide a strong case that the people who tell a lot of lies daily are not only different, they
are a population that needs to be studied independently of everyday liars in order to
better understand the motivation and production of lies. In addition, it is clear that the
differences between prolific and everyday liars are sufficiently large that experimental
deception research should control or account for the effect of prolific lying on base
rates, truth bias, situational factors, and transactional measures.
Appendix
Questionnaire Items From the OnePoll Survey Conducted April 2010 for
The Science Museum of London
1. On average, how many times a day do you tell a little white lie?
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25+)
2. On average, how many times a day do you tell a big lie?
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25+)
3. What do you think counts as a big lie?
Telling someone they look good when they don`t
Calling in sick to work when you feel fine
Saying you haven`t had that much to drink when you really have
Pretending you were too busy to take a call
How much you have spent on something
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 17
Whether or not you love someone
Whether you like someone or not
Not telling your partner where you have really been
Not telling your partner who you have really been with
4. How many times a day do you lie to your partner?
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25+)
5. How many times a day do you lie to one of your work colleagues?
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25+)
6. How many times a day do you lie to your boss?
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25+)
7. MEN, which of the following lies have you told your partner?
32 items (e.g., “I’m on my way”; “No, your bum doesn’t look too big in
that”)
8. WOMEN, which of the following lies have you told your partner?
31 items (e.g., “I’ve got a headache”; “Someone must have bumped into
the car”)
9. Which of the following lies have you told while at work?
16 items (e.g., “Traffic was bad”; “I’ve got a call on the other line”)
10. Who do you think tell the most lies?
(Men, women, both the same)
11. Who do you think are the better liars?
(Men, women, both the same)
12. Who do you think are the best at spotting when someone is lying?
(Men, women, both the same)
13. When do you think you tell the most lies?
(Child, teenager, young adult, middle aged adult, pensioner)
14. Who are you most likely to lie to?
(Partner, children, dad, mum, mother or father in law, brother, sister, best
friend, other friend, boss, work colleague)
15. Do you think there is such a thing as an acceptable lie? (no, yes)
16. When do you think it is OK to lie?
To save hurting someone`s feeling
When you don`t like someone`s gift
To protect someone
When a child wants something he or she can`t have
To stop someone finding out a secret
17. Do you ever feel guilty after telling a lie? (no, yes)
18. Have you ever been dumped because of a lie you told your partner? (no, yes)
19. Have you ever got into trouble or been sacked because of a lie you told at
work? (no, yes)
20. Do you think you can tell when people are lying to you? (no, yes-maybe,
yes-definitely)
21. If yes, which of the following things do you look for?
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

18 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
10 items (e.g., “They can`t look directly at you”; “They fidget a lot”) and
Other (open-ended)
22. Do you think lie detection is acceptable to use in everyday life? (no, yes)
23. Do you think lie detection is acceptable to use in criminal cases? (no, yes)
24. Do you think lie detection is acceptable to use in the workplace? (no, yes)
25. Do you think lie detection is acceptable to use in home life? (no, yes)
26. Which method of lie detection would you find most convincing?
(Brain scanning, polygraph test, reading body language)
Data include additional items coded from the sample file: age, gender, iPhone user,
education, marital status, home ownership, work status, income, industry, and
occupation.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Katie Maggs, Curator of Medicine; and Andrew Marcus, former
Press Officer at The Science Museum of London, for generously sharing the data from their
study. Thanks also to Oliver Rawlings-Connor, formerly of OnePoll, for technical support with
the data, and David Doane, Professor Emeritus at Oakland University, for his insight on Poisson
distributions and their possible use for identifying separate populations. Finally, we want to
thank editor Howie Giles and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on the origi-
nal manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1. A study by Gozna, Vrij, and Bull (2001) examined the relationship between personality and
prevalence using English university students but did not report actual prevalence statistics.
2. The unweighted sample was 66.7% female with a mean age of 34.9 years. Geographically,
85.1% of the responses came from England (22.3% in London), 8.1% were from Scotland,
5.4% were from Wales, and 1.4% were from Northern Ireland.
3. To examine the effect of the truncated U.K. scale we fit the open-ended U.S. data to the
U.K. scale values (6-7 = 5, 8-12 = 10, etc.; all values >25 = 25). This reduced the total
number of lies by 7.5%; only 0.2% of the adjustment was due to values less than 25. The
overall mean declined from 1.65 to 1.53 lies per day.
4. Both DePaulo et al. (1996) and Serota et al. (2010, Study 3) show that most subjects who
do not lie on a given day do lie but with less than daily frequency. When the interval for
reporting is expanded to a week, more than 90% of the samples reported lying behavior.
If fractional lies per day replace no lies per day in the mean calculations, the means will
increase slightly. However, adjusting both the U.K. and U.S. means with estimates based
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Serota and Levine 19
on 90% reporting some lying in a week does not substantially alter the comparison of U.K.
and U.S. results or the overall findings of either study.
References
Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York, NY: Vintage.
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy
and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477-492.
Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Hunsaker, F. G. (1991). Interpersonal deception: II.
The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. Communication
Monographs, 58, 25-40.
Cox, D. R., & Lewis, P. A. W. (1966). The statistical analysis of series of events. London,
England: Methuen.
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in
everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979-995.
Doane, D. P., & Seward, L. E. (2008). Applied statistics in business and economics (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Feldman, R. S., Forrest, J. A., & Happ, B. R. (2002). Self-presentation and verbal deception: Do
self-presenters lie more? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 163-170.
Gozna, L. F., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2001). The impact of individual differences on perceptions of
lying in everyday life and in a high stakes situation. Personality and Individual Differences,
31, 1203-1216.
Halevy, R., Shalvi, S., & Verschuere, B. (2014). Being honest about dishonesty: Correlating
self-reports and actual lying. Human Communication Research, 40, 54-72.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York, NY: Wiley.
Levine, T. R., Clare, D., Greene, T, Serota, K. B., & Park, H. S. (in press). The effects of
truth-lie base-rate on interactive deception detection accuracy: The Park-Levine probability
model versus interpersonal deception theory. Human Communication Research.
Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., Park, H. S., & Hughes, M. (2006). Deception detection accuracy
is a predictable linear function of message veracity base-rate: A formal test of Park and
Levine’s probability model. Communication Monographs, 73, 243-260.
Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies:
Documenting the “veracity effect.” Communication Monographs, 66, 125-144.
Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., . . .Lee, J. H.
(2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful
impact in deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377-403.
McCornack, S. A., & Parks, M. R. (1986). Deception detection and relationship development:
The other side of trust. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 377-
389). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Office for National Statistics. (2010, June 24). Mid year population estimates 2009 [PDF of
multiple data files]. Retrieved from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/all-releases.
html?definition=tcm%3A77-22371
Park, H. S., & Levine, T. R. (2001). A probability model of accuracy in deception detection
experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201-210.
The Science Museum. (2010, May 5). Mum’s most likely to be lied to shows new poll. London,
England: Author. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/press_and_
media/press_releases/2010/05/Lies%20survey.aspx
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20 Journal of Language and Social Psychology
Serota, K. B. (2011). Marketing deception: brand identification and search, experience, and
credence characteristics as moderators of truth bias and detection accuracy (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three
studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36, 2-25.
Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & Dreu, C. K. W. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing
desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 115, 181-190.
Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R. S. (2004). Truth, lies, and self-presentation: How gender and antici-
pated future interaction relate to deceptive behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
34, 2602-2615.
Authors Biographies
Kim B. Serota is Visiting Professor in the Department of Management and Marketing at
Oakland University. His research focuses on the extent of lying and the detection of lies in
management and everyday interpersonal contexts, on the ability of consumers to detect decep-
tive marketing messages, and the impact of marketing deception on consumer behavior.
Formerly a marketing researcher, he has extensive experience with the design and application
of consumer panels for behavioral research.
Timothy R. Levine is a professor in the School of Media and Communication at Korea
University in Seoul, Republic of Korea. He is a leading expert in the area of deception detection.
Beside deception, he has published research on topics such as interpersonal communication,
cross-cultural communication, quantitative methods, and social influence.
at OAKLAND UNIV on April 6, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from