Rejoinder to Levine, Clare et al.'s Comparison of the Park-Levine Probability Model Versus Interpersonal Deception Theory: Application to Deception Detection

Levine, Clare, Green, Serota and Park (2014) present studies intended to demonstrate that the Park-Levine probability model (PLM) better accounts for accuracy in detecting interactive deception than interpersonal deception theory (IDT). This rejoinder makes 6 points: (a) the PLM is a description not an explanation; (b) IDT and its empirical support are seriously mischaracterized; (c) application of the PLM to interactive deception is based on a faulty understanding of what constitutes interactive deception; (d) the test pitting IDT against the PLM is invalid; (e) IDT offers a rival explanation for the pattern of results; and (f) empirical data show that deception judgments covary dynamically with deceptiveness of the messages being produced. Other misstatements are also addressed.