Deception among pairs: "Let's say we had lunch and hope they will swallow it!": Deception among pairs

Deception research has neglected the fact that legal-workers often have to try to detect deceit on the basis of statements derived from pairs of suspects, each having been interrogated repeatedly. To remedy this shortcoming we conducted a study where each member of 10 truth-telling pairs and 10 lyin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology, crime & law crime & law, 2003-06, Vol.9 (2), p.109-124
Main Authors: Strömwall, Leif A., Granhag, Pär Anders, Jonsson, Anna-Carin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Deception detection
Diagnostic values of cues to deception
Pairs of suspects
Repeated interrogations
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Deception research has neglected the fact that legal-workers often have to try to detect deceit on the basis of statements derived from pairs of suspects, each having been interrogated repeatedly. To remedy this shortcoming we conducted a study where each member of 10 truth-telling pairs and 10 lying pairs was interrogated twice about an alibi. One hundred and twenty undergraduate students were enrolled as lie-catchers. The main findings were that (a) overall deception detection accuracy was modest; (b) lie-catchers given access to a large number of statements did not outperform lie-catchers given access to a lesser number of statements; (c) when asked to justify their veracity assessments the most frequently reported cue was 'consistency within pairs of suspects'; (d) all cues to deception were of low diagnostic value. Psycho-legal aspects of integrating sequential information in deception detection contexts are discussed.
ISSN:1068-316X
1477-2744
DOI:10.1080/1068316031000116238