Home › Polygraph Research › Researchers › Bella M. DePaulo
Researcher file
Bella M. DePaulo
Psychology of deception, lying in everyday life, and behavioral cues to deception
Researcher record
About Bella M. DePaulo
Bella M. DePaulo is a social psychologist who earned her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1979. She conducted much of her deception research while affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia, and she is currently an Academic Affiliate in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She is the recipient of numerous honors and awards, including the James McKeen Cattell Award and the Research Scientist Development Award.
DePaulo is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on the psychology of lying and deception detection, having authored more than 100 scholarly publications on deception and nonverbal communication. Her groundbreaking work on everyday lying revolutionized the field by documenting the frequency and nature of deception in daily life: in diary studies, college students reported telling 2 lies per day while community members told 1. Her meta-analytic research on deception detection demonstrated that people achieve an average of only 54% correct lie-truth judgments, revealing the difficulty humans have in detecting lies. Her 2003 meta-analysis on behavioral cues to deception, synthesizing findings from numerous studies, became one of the most cited works in the field. She also conducted influential research showing that the correlation between judges' accuracy at detecting deception and their confidence in their judgments is not significantly different from zero.
DePaulo has worked extensively with prominent deception researchers, particularly Charles F. Bond, Jr., with whom she co-authored major meta-analyses synthesizing research results from 206 documents and 24,483 judges. She has addressed diverse professional audiences including polygraphers (directing a seminar at the Advanced Studies Institute for Polygraphers) and was an invited participant in intelligence community workshops co-sponsored by the CIA, FBI, RAND Corporation, and the American Psychological Association. Her research has been widely covered in major media outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and national television networks.
While DePaulo's deception research represents a major contribution to forensic and psychological science, her work spans multiple areas of social psychology. She developed influential theoretical frameworks including a self-presentational perspective for understanding nonverbal communication in 1992, which has been applied to understanding deception processes. In recent years, she has shifted her primary focus to studying single life and challenging stereotypes about unmarried individuals, though her foundational work on lying and lie detection continues to be extensively cited in the credibility assessment literature.
Research methodology profile
Research areas
Co-author network
Researchers who have co-authored studies with Bella M. DePaulo.
Publications [20]
All peer-reviewed studies by Bella M. DePaulo in our database.
Training to Detect Deception: No Improvement with Training or Feedback
Showed that neither training nor feedback improved human deception detection significantly. Individual differences in detection ability were minimal, further supporting technological approaches. [002] 2006 Personality and Social Psychology ReviewAccuracy of Deception Judgments: Appendix B
[003] 2006 Personality and Social Psychology ReviewAccuracy of deception judgements
Humans detect lies at only 54% accuracy (barely above chance), with better performance on truths (61%) than lies (47%). Accuracy varies more by sender characteristics than judge ability, and professionals… [004] 2004 In: Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L. (Eds.), The Detection of Deception in Forensic ContextsDiscerning lies from truths: Behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition
Behavioral cues to deception are generally weak and unreliable, with many behaviors showing no discernible links to deceit. Human accuracy in detecting lies from behavior averages only 54%, and cues… [005] 2003 Psychological BulletinCues to deception
Only 14 of 50 frequently examined cues (28%) showed significant relationships with deception, with small average effect sizes (d = .25). Liars appeared less forthcoming, more tense, and told less… [006] 2002 Personality and Social Psychology BulletinThe Development of Deception Detection Skill: A Longitudinal Study of Same-Sex Friends
Deception detection accuracy improved only for emotionally close friend pairs over a 5-month period; less close pairs became more suspicious without gaining accuracy. Indirect measures revealed implicit detection abilities even… [007] 2001 • BEHAVIORAL CUES Psychological BulletinCues to Deception: A Meta-Analysis of Behavioral Indicators
Massive meta-analysis of 116 studies examining behavioral deception cues. Found most behavioral cues are weak or unreliable, explaining why human deception detection is near chance and supporting instrument-based approaches. [008] 2000 • SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Personality and Social Psychology ReviewAccuracy of Deception Judgments
Review confirming that human accuracy at detecting deception averages only 54%, barely above chance. Even trained professionals (police, judges) showed minimal improvement, underscoring need for physiological methods. [009] 1997 Personality and Social Psychology ReviewThe Accuracy-Confidence Correlation in the Detection of Deception
Confidence and accuracy are independent in deception detection (r = .04). Paradoxically, confidence was associated with truth bias, judging truths, male gender, and relationship closeness—none of which improved actual detection… [010] 1996 • EVERYDAY DECEPTION Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyLying in Everyday Life
Seminal diary study finding people lie in approximately 25% of daily social interactions. Established baseline deception frequency in normal populations, contextualizing polygraph applications. [011] 1989 Credibility Assessment (Book Chapter)The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception
[012] 1988 Journal of Nonverbal BehaviorNonverbal aspects of deception
[013] 1986 Journal of Applied Social PsychologyOn the job experience and skill at detecting deception
Experienced federal law enforcement officers were significantly more confident in their deception judgments than students or recruits, but showed no greater accuracy. None of the groups improved during the test,… [014] 1986 Journal of Applied Social PsychologyOn-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception and truth
[015] 1984 Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyEffects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions.
Suspicion did not improve deception detection accuracy or ability to discern true dispositions. However, primed interviewers were less confident and judged all applicants as more deceptive, demonstrating that heightened vigilance… [016] 1982 Journal of Nonverbal BehaviorNonverbal strategies for decoding deception
Judges who expected more deception discounted facial cues when evaluating discrepant messages, but this strategy reduced their accuracy when decoding truthful, consistent communications. Even without explicit instructions, multichannel discrepancies spontaneously… [017] 1982 Basic and Applied Social PsychologyActual and perceived cues to deception: A closer look at speech
Laypeople's intuitions about verbal deception cues demonstrated significant correspondence with actual deception markers, including reduced positivity, increased neutrality, and elevated nonfluencies in deceptive speech. However, judges also relied on cues… [018] 1982 Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyDiagnosing deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and nonverbal cues
[019] 1981 Advances in Experimental Social PsychologyVerbal and nonverbal communication of deception
Eight of 19 behavioral cues showed statistically significant differences between truthful and deceptive communication, including elevated vocal pitch, pupil dilation, self-adaptors, increased blinking, speech errors, and hesitations. The research demonstrated… [020] 1980 The Review of Personality and Social PsychologyDetecting deception: Modality effects
Explore all research.
Browse our complete database of 3493 peer-reviewed polygraph studies.