SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Journal Article 1: Brion, S., Lount, R. B., & Doyle, S. P. (2015). Knowing if you are trusted: Does meta-accuracy promote trust development? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 823–830. doi:10.1177/1948550615590200
Abstract: In this study, we examine how accurately assessing how much one is trusted by others (i.e., meta-accuracy) affects trust development. We disentangle meta-accuracy, overestimation, and underestimation and investigate to what extent accurate, overly positive, or overly negative perceptions of trust contribute to trust development. Using longitudinal data of teams and two distinct analytical approaches to model accuracy, we find that meta-accuracy contributes to increases in downstream trust. We discuss the findings implications for trust development and detail some important avenues for future work.
Journal Article 2: Park, H. S., Choi, H. J., Oh, J. Y., & Levine, T. R. (2018). Differences and similarities between Koreans and Americans in lying and truth-telling. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 37, 562–577. doi:10.1177/0261927X18760081
Abstract: Cultures may differ in descriptive and injunctive norms about lying and telling the truth and also in terms of the extent to which individuals intend to tell a lie or the truth when a friend is in trouble. Study 1 (N = 460) showed that Koreans had stronger intentions to lie for a friend and weaker intentions to tell the truth than Americans. For lying, Americans indicated stronger perceptions of descriptive norms (e.g., many others would lie in this situation) than did Koreans. For truth-telling, Americans perceived stronger injunctive norms (i.e., people approve of truth-telling in this situation) than did Koreans. Study 2 (N = 207) showed that compared to Koreans, Americans had more favorable impressions about a person who told the truth. Implications of this study’s findings are discussed.
Journal Article 3: Serota, K. B., & Levine, T. R. (2015). A few prolific liars: Variation in the prevalence of lying. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 34, 138–157. doi:10.1177/0261927X14528804
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.