Literature DB >> 12412493

"He's guilty!": investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception.

Christian A Meissner1, Saul M Kassin.   

Abstract

Detecting deception is an inherently difficult task, but one that plays a critical role for law enforcement investigators in the interrogation room. In general, research has failed to indicate that performance in this domain is improved by training or prior experience. A signal detection framework is applied to the paradigm to better conceptualize the influence of these two factors. We found that although neither factor influenced discrimination accuracy, there was an effect on response bias such that training and prior experience appeared to increase the likelihood of responding "deceit" as opposed to "truth." This "investigator bias" was observed both in a review of the literature and in this study of North American law enforcement investigators who took part in a forensically based deception-detection task. Possible theoretical mechanisms and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12412493     DOI: 10.1023/a:1020278620751

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Law Hum Behav        ISSN: 0147-7307


  12 in total

Review 1.  Credible testimony in and out of court.

Authors:  Barbara A Spellman; Elizabeth R Tenney
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-04

Review 2.  The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom.

Authors:  Joyce W Lacy; Craig E L Stark
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 34.870

3.  What was I thinking? Eye-tracking experiments underscore the bias that architecture exerts on nuclear grading in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Dario Bombari; Braulio Mora; Stephan C Schaefer; Fred W Mast; Hans-Anton Lehr
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  "You can't kid a kidder": association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task.

Authors:  Gordon R T Wright; Christopher J Berry; Geoffrey Bird
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 3.169

5.  The "good cop, bad cop" effect in the RT-based concealed information test: exploring the effect of emotional expressions displayed by a virtual investigator.

Authors:  Mihai Varga; George Visu-Petra; Mircea Miclea; Laura Visu-Petra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  How to Trick Your Opponent: A Review Article on Deceptive Actions in Interactive Sports.

Authors:  Iris Güldenpenning; Wilfried Kunde; Matthias Weigelt
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-05-31

7.  Commentary: Can Ordinary People Detect Deception after All?

Authors:  Chris N H Street; Miguel A Vadillo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-10-13

8.  Stepovers and Signal Detection: Response Sensitivity and Bias in the Differentiation of Genuine and Deceptive Football Actions.

Authors:  Robin C Jackson; Hayley Barton; Kelly J Ashford; Bruce Abernethy
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-10-29

9.  Veracity judgement, not accuracy: Reconsidering the role of facial expressions, empathy, and emotion recognition training on deception detection.

Authors:  Mircea Zloteanu; Peter Bull; Eva G Krumhuber; Daniel C Richardson
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 2.143

10.  Increasing skepticism toward potential liars: effects of existential threat on veracity judgments and the moderating role of honesty norm activation.

Authors:  Simon Schindler; Marc-André Reinhard
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-09-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.