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.