What’s up with Tim?

(Updated Jan. 2012) 


I got MSU’s distinguished faculty award.


My Current and Recent Research is looking at:


-Sender Demeanor (and the findings are very cool)

-Question Effects & Detection Accuracy (cool findings here too)

-Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in Deception

-The Consistency Heuristic in Deception Judgments (with Pete Blair and Torsten Reimer)

-Replicating our base-rate findings with interactive data

-Expertise and detection accuracy


I have some very cool new deception articles/studies addressing how often people lie and factors affecting detection accuracy:


Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B. Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., Shim, J. C., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377-403.


Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., and Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of reported deception. Human Communication Research, 36, 1-24.


Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., & Shulman, H. (2010). The impact of Lie to Me on viewers actual ability to detect deception. Communication Research.


Levine, T. R., Shaw, A., & Shulman, H. (2010). Increasing deception detection accuracy with direct questioning. Human Communication Research, 36, 216-231.


Levine, T. R. (2010). A few transparent liars: Explaining 54% accuracy in deception detection experiments. Communication Yearbook, 34 (pp 40-61). Sage.


Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Blair, J. P. (2010). (In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Human Communication Research, 36, 81-101.

 

Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 420-439.

 

Levine, T. R., & Blair, J. P. (2010). Questioning strategies, diagnostic utility, and expertise interactions in deception detection.

 

Previews of the forthcoming Truth-Default Theory can be found in:

 

Levine, T. R. & Kim, R. K. (2010). Some considerations for a new theory of deceptive communication. In M. Knapp & M. McGlone (Eds). The Interplay of Truth and Deception (pp. 16-34). Routledge.

 

Levine, T. R. (2010). A few transparent liars: Explaining 54% accuracy in deception detection experiments. Communication Yearbook, 34. (Accepted for publication).

 

Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Blair, J. P. (2010). (In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Human Communication Research, 36, 81-101.

 

Those interested in deception might also check out....

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/

http://deception.crimepsychblog.com/

 

Here is a brief interview I did for the Discovery Channel:

3 Questions about Deception

 

I published a paper in Communication Education about citation trends in Communication Journals.

 

Levine, T. R. (2010). Ranking and trends in citation patterns of communication journals. Communication Education, 59, 41-51.

 

The Friends with Benefits research covered in the New York Times is here.

 

Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66-73.

 

We published a paper in JOC testing the effectiveness of fear appeals in Africa. The paper may be the first article in the communication literature to use equivalence testing.

 

Muthuswamy, N., Levine, T. R., & Weber, R. (2009). Scaring the already scared: Some problems with HIV/AIDS fear appeals in Africa. Journal of Communication, 59, 317-344.

 

Jayson Dibble and I created a scale to measure relationship closeness, and we call it the URCS (Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale). Reliability and validity look great. The on-line first version is available (see link above).

 

The eta and partial eta squared article in Human Communication Research, the Levine and McCroskey 1990 validation of the PRCA-24, and the Veracity Effect papers are my 3 most cited papers.

 

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., & Hullett, C. (2002). Eta-square, partial eta-square, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 612-625.

 

Levine, T. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Measuring trait communication apprehension: A test of rival measurement models of the PRCA-24. Communication Monographs, 57, 62-72.

 

I just co-authored a couple papers on Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) and alternatives in Human Communication Research.

 

Levine, T. R., Weber, R., Hullett, C. R., Park, H. S., & Lindsey, L. (2008). A Critical Assessment of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Quantitative Communication Research. Human Communication Research, 34, 171-187.

 

Levine, T. R., Weber, R., Park, H. S., & Hullett, C. R. (2008). A Communication Researchers Guide to Null Hypothesis Significance Testing and Alternatives. Human Communication Research, 34, 188-209.

 

Carrie Oliveira and I finally got around to publishing the Lie Acceptability Scale. The article includes the scale items.

 

Oliveira, C. M. & Levine, T. R. (2008). Lie Acceptability: A construct and measure. Communication Research Reports, 25, 282-288.

 

Did you know that self-construal scales lack validity and that there is a MTMM follow-up study?

 

Levine, T., R., Bresnahan, M., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Wittenbaum, G., Shearman, S., Lee, S. Y., Chung, D. H., & Ohashi, R. (2003). Self-construals scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29, 210-252.

 

Levine, T., R., Bresnahan, M., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Lee, T. S., & Lee, D. W. (2003). The (in)validity of self-construal scales revisited. Human Communication Research, 29, 291-308.

 

Bresnahan, M. J., Levine, T. R., Shearman, S., Lee, S. Y., Park, C. Y., & Kiyomiya, T. (2005). A multimethod-multitrait validity assessment of self-construal in Japan, Korea, and the U.S.

Human Communication Research, 31, 33-59.

 

It turns out the the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS) is not unidimensional after all, and we just finished the first ever MTMM evaluation of the VAS and the argumentativeness scales. We also have a new meta-analysis.

 

Kotowski, M. R., Levine, T. R., Baker, C., & Bolt, J. (2009). A multi-trait multi-method validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and a argumentativeness scales. Revision under review at Communication Monographs, 76, 443-462.

 

Levine, T. R., Beatty, M. J., Limon, S., Hamilton, M. A., Buck, R., & Chory-Asada, R. M. (2004). The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs, 71, 245-268.

 

Levine, T. R., Kotowski, M. R., Beatty, M. J., & Van Kelegom, M. J. (2011). Trait-behavior correlations in argumentativeness and verbal aggression: A meta-analysis in reply to Infante, Rancer and Wigley. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. (Online first, November, 2011).

 

Curious about publication bias in communication research and its effect on meta-analysis?

 

Levine, T. R., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, C. (2009). Sample size and effect size are negatively correlated in meta-analysis: Evidence and implications of a publication bias against non-significant findings. Communication Monographs, 76, 286-302.

 

Well, that’s what new (to be continued...)