Deception detection:: Interrogators' and observers' decoding of consecutive statements

被引:37
作者
Granhag, PA [1 ]
Strömwall, LA [1 ]
机构
[1] Gothenburg Univ, Dept Psychol, S-41124 Gothenburg, Sweden
关键词
cues to deception; diagnostic values; interpersonal deception; interrogators and observers; repeated interrogations;
D O I
10.1080/00223980109603723
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
This study is an examination of two forensically important but previously neglected issues in interpersonal deception. First, which cues do lie catchers-who have access to repeated interrogations-pay attention to in order to detect deception? Second, do face-to-face interacting interrogators differ from noninteracting observers in terms of how they perceive a suspect? After watching a staged event, 24 suspects (12 liars and 12 truth tellers) were interrogated three times over a period of I I days. After the final interrogation, the veracity of each suspect was assessed by his or her interrogator and by 6 observers who had watched the interrogations on video only. The results of the experiment showed that consistency over time was by far the most commonly used cue for justifying veracity judgments. Critically, the predictive accuracy for this cue was alarmingly low. As opposed to results from previous research, the interrogators used verbal cues to a significantly greater extent than did the observers. Furthermore, a probing effect was shown (i.e., probed suspects were perceived as significantly more honest than nonprobed suspects). Finally, limited support for a previously reported honesty effect was obtained (i.e., that interrogators perceive suspects to be more honest than do observers).
引用
收藏
页码:603 / 620
页数:18
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   THIN SLICES OF EXPRESSIVE BEHAVIOR AS PREDICTORS OF INTERPERSONAL CONSEQUENCES - A METAANALYSIS [J].
AMBADY, N ;
ROSENTHAL, R .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1992, 111 (02) :256-274
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1999, Handbook of the psychology of interviewing
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2000, New trends in criminal investigation and evidence II
[4]  
Brandt D. R., 1982, Western Journal of Speech Communication, V46, P276, DOI [10.1080/10570318209374086, DOI 10.1080/10570318209374086]
[5]  
BRUNING JL, 1968, COMPUTATIONAL HDB ST
[6]   INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION .2. THE INFERIORITY OF CONVERSATIONAL PARTICIPANTS AS DECEPTION DETECTORS [J].
BULLER, DB ;
STRZYZEWSKI, KD ;
HUNSAKER, FG .
COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, 1991, 58 (01) :25-40
[7]   THE EFFECT OF PROBING ON DECEIVERS AND TRUTHTELLERS [J].
BULLER, DB ;
COMSTOCK, J ;
AUNE, RK ;
STRZYZEWSKI, KD .
JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR, 1989, 13 (03) :155-170
[8]   Behavioral adaptation in deceptive transactions - Fact or fiction: Reply [J].
Buller, DB ;
Stiff, JB ;
Burgoon, JK .
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 1996, 22 (04) :589-603
[9]  
Bullough W. A., 1991, Mechatronics, V1, P1, DOI 10.1016/0957-4158(91)90003-S
[10]  
Burgoon JK., 1991, South. J. Commun, V56, P96, DOI [10.1080/10417949109372822, DOI 10.1080/10417949109372822]