How to Detect Deception? Arresting the Beliefs of Police Officers, Prosecutors and Judges

Strömwall, Leif A.; Granhag, Pär Anders

doi:10.1080/10683160308138

Cited by 200 publications

(180 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

154

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Global Deception Research Team (2006), for example, reported that people generally believe liars' stories are longer and more inconsistent than are truth tellers' stories. Furthermore, police officers, prosecutors, and judges also believed that liars' stories are less detailed and less consistent (Strömwall & Granhag, 2003). Research investigating criminals' beliefs about deception cues reported that prison inmates primarily use plausibility as a cue to deception, while lay people mostly rely on inconsistencies .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐Reported Beliefs About Verbal Cues Correlate with Deception‐Detection Performance

Bogaard

Meijer

2017

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐Reported Beliefs About Verbal Cues Correlate with Deception‐Detection Performance

Bogaard

Meijer

2017

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In particular, liars tend to: appear to think harder when recalling an event (Vrij, 2004;; use fewer illustrators (Mann, Vrij, & Bull, 2004;Vrij, 2004;Vrij et al, 2000), as well as digit and limb movements (Baker, Stern, & Goldstein, 1990;DePaulo, 1992;De Paulo et al, 2003;Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Andersson, 2004;Sporer & Schwandt, 2007;Vrij, 2000;Zuckerman, Spiegel, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1982); blink less often Mann et al, 2002;; smile less often (Hartwig et al, 2004;); purse their lips more often (DePaulo et al, 2003); show increased pupil dilation (DePaulo et al, 2003); and employ self-adaptors (Zuckerman et al, 1982) (Akehurst, Köhnken, Vrij, & Bull, 1996;Strömwall & Granhag, 2003b;Zuckerman et al, 1982). For example, commonly held beliefs are that, compared to truth-tellers, liars are more likely to behave nervously [The Global Deception Research Team (GDRT), 2006;Hartwig et al, 2004], showing behaviours such as increased gaze aversion (GDRT, 2006;Mann et al, 2004;Sitton & Griffin, 1981;Strömwall & Granhag, 2003b;Vrij, 2004;Vrij, 2008;Vrij & Semin, 1996) and increased bodily movements (GDRT, 2006), including increased limb and digit movements, fidgeting, and use of self adaptors Strömwall & Granhag, 2003b;Vrij, 2004;Vrij, 2008;Vrij & Semin, 1996). Notably, there is substantial cross-cultural agreement in beliefs about how liars' behave (GDRT, 2006).…”

Section: Purported Versus Valid Cues Used To Detect Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, there are at least a few commonly-held beliefs about lying that are valid (e.g., liars make increased speech hesitations and errors; Vrij, 1998;; liars provide fewer detailed accounts; Strömwall & Granhag, 2003a). Legal professionals also differ widely between and within professions in the beliefs they hold about lie detection (Strömwall & Granhag, 2003b), thus they may not all rely on the same cues to detect deception. On the whole, however, the majority of cues used to detect deception are not in fact diagnostic indicators of truth-telling or deception and will not lead lie detectors to make accurate decisions.…”

Section: Purported Versus Valid Cues Used To Detect Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, most people have difficulty pinpointing which cues they use to determine whether a person is lying (Strömwall & Granhag, 2003b), which may reflect a dissociation of their beliefs about deception from their ability to detect deception. Furthermore, if criminal investigators as a group were highly accurate at lie detection, it would render holding erroneous beliefs surrounding deception detection inconsequential.…”

Section: Purported Versus Valid Cues Used To Detect Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Truth and Deception in Informants' Accounts of Criminal Admissions

Boydell¹

2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informants who report admissions to crime can be powerful and dangerous players in the criminal justice system. Some informants, such as jailhouse informants, are considered deceitful, in part because they can receive incentives to report criminal admissions. However, little research has examined the nature of information that informants provide. In particular, no recent published research has examined whether there are valid behavioural cues that distinguish deceptive from truthful informants. In addition, no published study to date has explored whether informants' reports and demeanours are affected by the incentives that they receive. Participants in this study either did or did not hear a criminal admission and then were interviewed one week later about details of the admission they had allegedly heard. Some participants were offered an incentive to report the criminal admission in a way that appeared accurate and forthcoming. The results of this study suggest that there may be behavioural cues emitted during the reporting of criminal admissions that distinguish truthful from deceptive informants. However, the direction of differences for some cues may deviate from other types of witnesses to crime. In addition, the findings of this study indicate that being offered an incentive may induce informants to emit cues during the reporting of criminal admissions that make them appear more truthful, regardless of whether or not they are actually telling the truth. The findings of this study raise concerns about whether informants' honesty should be assessed in the same way as other witnesses, and about potentially negative consequences of offering incentives to informants in exchange for their reports of criminal admissions.

show abstract

“…Once this has been accomplished, ineffective methods can be eliminated from the training curricula and replaced by innovative strategies complete with a valid description of the underlying factors that are essential to success. 86 Cialdini,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. 87 Cialdini, SERE psychologists have identifi ed the inability to effectively forecast near-term events as a major stressor in the detention environment.…”

Section: The Need Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the Future

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. REPORT DATE DEC 20062 Same as Report (SAR)18 About the Intelligence Science Board MissionThe Intelligence Science Board was chartered in August 2002 and advises the Offi ce of the Director of National Intelligence and senior Intelligence Community leaders on emerging scientifi c and technical issues of special importance to the Intelligence Community. The mission of the Board is to provide the Intelligence Community with outside expert advice and unconventional thinking, early notice of advances in science and technology, insight into new applications of existing technology, and special studies that require skills or organizational approaches not resident within the Intelligence Community. The Board also creates linkages between the Intelligence Community and the scientifi c and technical communities. ImpactBoard members initiate studies and assessments in topic areas where they believe that the Board's interdisciplinary expertise and experience could benefi t the Intelligence Community. In addition, the Board responds to tasking from the Associate Director of National Intelligence for Science and Technology and from the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community. All ISB tasks are mutually agreed to by the ISB and by the Associate Director of National Intelligence for Science and Technology. The Board's procedures for developing and communicating its fi ndings and advice will remain as fl exible and informal as is possible, consistent with the mission. MembershipThe Board is composed of approximately 25 members whose range of expertise encompasses the physical and biological sciences, information technology and communications, information policy, and the law, among others. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not refl ect the offi cial policy or position of the Department of Defense, the National Foreign Intelligence Community or the U.S. Government EDUCING INFORMATION Interrogation: Science and Art The National Defense Intelligence College supports and encourages research on intelligence issues that distills lessons and improves Intelligence Community capabilities for policy-level and operational consumersEducing Information: Interrogatio...

show abstract

How to Detect Deception? Arresting the Beliefs of Police Officers, Prosecutors and Judges

Cited by 200 publications

References 22 publications

Self‐Reported Beliefs About Verbal Cues Correlate with Deception‐Detection Performance

Self‐Reported Beliefs About Verbal Cues Correlate with Deception‐Detection Performance

Truth and Deception in Informants' Accounts of Criminal Admissions

Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About