The Curious Case of Courtroom Liars’ Credibility

Abstract

How do we evaluate people who provide false information? The current studies uncover a context in which people who intentionally lie are perceived as more credible than those who unintentionally mix up information. Across three studies (total N=1196), participants read about an incident witnessed by targets who, when queried, either lied about or mixed up information. Participants then evaluated those targets. In Study 1, we demonstrate that in a courtroom, targets who lie (versus mix up information) are judged as more credible. We next test two boundary conditions, showing that the effect may be constrained by particular contextual characteristics of a courtroom (Study 2) and that the misinformation needs to be unrelated to the information on which the target’s advice or testimony is sought (Study 3). The current research suggests that under specific circumstances, perceivers may evaluate targets who lie as more credible than those who mix up information.