Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
February 8, 2006
Centrality of deception
p p p
Interviews
n
Importance of coming off as innocent Inability to convey innocence effectively Presentation of false evidence Maximization and minimization
Miranda waivers
n
Interrogation
n n
p p
n n
Examine ability to detect deception among law enforcement personnel, students, and general population Judge 10 1-minute videos (half showed liars)
p
Lie was unrelated to criminal behavior How well do groups detect deception? Individuals? What helps detect deception?
Nonverbals? Microexpressions?
Questions
p p
Results
n
Nonverbals behavior
People were more successful when they listed behavioral cues as basis of their decision But couldnt articulate that as their a priori strategy
Microexpressions
r = .27; 7% of variance.
Results
n
Confidence
p
Secret Service, law enforcement personnel, and polygraphers are significantly more confident than are judges and psychiatrists. Why?
Secret Service may have reason to be confident Experience? Training?
Issues
n
Without trying, you can hit 50% by answering in 1 direction for all items Age seems to be a hindrance. Why?
Ekman & OSullivan suggest less frequent interrogation Slipping in old age? Havent learned newest techniques General communicative bias Remember Kassin & Fong, 1999, from last Wednesday: law enforcement personnel have response bias towards deception Not addressed here
Role of age/experience
p
Issues
n
Veracity of each statement was independently verified Watch a tape with several clips from different interviews
Questions
n n n
How accurate are police at detecting lies? Does experience interviewing increase accuracy? Do good and poor lie detectors rely differentially on speech-related cues?
p p
Based on presumption that those interrogated tend to have low IQ and thus do poor job lying Good lie detectors right 50+% lie and truth accuracy
n n
Does use of fidget cues limit accuracy? Does use of Inbau-recommended behavioral cues limit accuracy?
p
Gaze aversion, unnatural posture changes, hand over mouth or eyes when speaking
When asked before the task, good interviewers were more likely to mention looking at aspects of the story itself than were poor interviewers Mentioning Ibau behavioral cues significantly predicted poorer performance when trying to detect truth
p
Multiple regression
Good
p p
Veracity of clip (whether person was lying or truthful) Illustrators (hand and arm gestures w/ story) Suspect gender (male seen as more guilty) Veracity of clip More gaze aversion More head nods
Poor
p p p p
Different materials
p
Higher stakes, past research shows differences between lie and truth groups amplified Maybe just easier to read these particular people
No student comparison group, so we cant tell
Why so poor?
If chance is 50%, why do the most favorable studies report only 60-65% accuracy among police officers? p Reasons
p
n
No Pinnochio
p p
There is no ONE sign that someone is lying Differences result from withholding emotion, cognitive load, and/or attempted control
Can all work simultaneously Can compete: eye blinking Nervousness increases blinking Cognitive load decreases blinking
Vrij (2004)
Why so poor?
p
Reasons
n
Heuristics
p
Probing heuristic
If someone is questioned and isnt thought deceitful, they most likely never will be Importance of the interview!!!
Representativeness heuristic
How much does a particular behavior resemble a broader classification Fidgeting erroneously believed to signal deception
FAE
Over-reliance on dispositional attribution Guilty before, guilty again bad apple theory Come off as innocent, youre a good guy
Vrij (2004)
Why so poor?
p
Reasons
n
Vrij (2004)
Why so poor
p
Same pattern among Turkish and Moroccan Dutch and White Dutch
Eye contact polite in Western cultures, but extremely ruse in others, especially with someone of authority
Dutch citizens from Surinam (South America) make more speech disturbances (ah speech), selfmanipulations (nonessential movement) and use more illustrators
Natural behavior is what White Dutch see as deceptive
Vrij (2004)
Why so poor?
p
Feedback hypothesis
n n
Its not enough to simply make deception judgments for a living You need timely and accurate feedback about your decisions
p
Environmental feedback
n n
Criminals may live in more deceptive environment May need to be hyper-vigilant to keep from being deceived
p
Recidivism
p
People tend to commit multiple crimes, get feedback on how to be deceptive successfully
Inmates can rapidly produce convincing false confessions (Norwick, et al., 2002)
Criminals beliefs about the following were more in line with research than were students and prison guards:
p p p p p
Body movement Gaze aversion Consistency Length of pauses in speech Reliance on verbal v. nonverbal cues
52 Swedish prison inmates, 52 Swedish university students Evaluate video of eyewitness to a staged robbery
Interviewed 3 hr, 4 d, and 11 d after attack Eyewitness told to tell what happened or to lie and say the victim initiated the knife attack and hurt himself in the process
Decide whether witness was truthful and rate confidence from 50% (guess) to 100% (certain)
Provide cues used, if so inclined
Hartwig et al (2004)
p
Verbal
p p p p p p
Completeness of statement Witness confidence Consistency across interviews Degree of detail in account Plausibility Rehearsed story Body/trunk movements Gaze Nervousness Behavior credibility in general
Nonverbal
p p p p
Hartwig et al (2004)
p
Accuracy
n
Overall
p p
Criminals:65.4% - sig better than chance Students: 57.7% - chance Criminals: 42.3% Students: 50% Criminals: 88.5% - sig better than chance Students: 65.4%
If statement is Truth
p p
If statement is Lie
p p
Response bias
n
But notice, whereas police tend to assume guilt and do poorly, criminals assume guilt but apply bias more selectively and show decent performance
Cues to deception
n n
Criminals use same number and same type (verbal v. nonverbal) cues as students Criminals relied primarily on plausibility
p
Review
n
Criminals may be environmentally-trained to detect plausible stories to avoid neg. consequences of being deceived Criminals beliefs about the role of consistency more in line with research findings than are students and guards Criminals tend to be more accurate
p
Wrapping up
p p
We started with the power false confessions have over juries Weve seen how law enforcement personnel poorly discriminate truth from deception
n n
p p
Weve seen how innocence can lead people to waive their Constitutional protections Weve seen how the structural and psychological properties of interrogation conspire to constrain suspects options
n n
Innocence doesnt feed back; seen as guilt Behavioral confirmation, authority, reciprocity
Youve read how details fed to suspects during interrogation can become part of a confession that innocent suspects either accept/internalize and/or embellish themselves
10