Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Can deception be detected? |
- most professionals and non professionals do not rely on value clues - NEGATIVE association between motivation to detect lies and accuracy |
|
|
Laypersons |
- in general ppl are only able to detect deception at the level of chance -Vrij- outcome of 39 deception detection studies conducted after 1980 and found that mean accuracy rate was 56.6% |
|
|
Individual Differences in Detection |
Nature article (2000) - left hemisphere damaged patients did significantly better than other groups (73%) -relied more on nonverbal cues (facial expressions) - impaired language comprehension limited the ability to utilize verbal cues |
|
|
Indiv diff's contd |
Porter, Stapleton, Birt, Campbell (2001) - n: 310 - judged honesty of 8 tapes- 4 truths, 4 lies Accuracy of detecting lies higher when - judge was left handed (67% vs 56%) - target was unattractive - targe and judge were of opposite genders -judge relied less on "vague" cues |
|
|
Professionals detecting Deception |
-they are TERRIBLE - |
|
|
Justice Rooke of the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta (1996) |
- stated that judges were no better trained than others in the assessment of credibility - judges should have more training - institutionalized or self directed- in credibility assessment |
|
|
R vs. S (R.D) 1997 |
- "a determination of credibility and its dependence on intangible such as demeaned... requires the judge to be particularly careful" - judges as arbiters of truth, cannot judge credibility based on irrelevant witness characteristics |
|
|
Ekman & Sullivan 1991 |
- videotaped liars and truth tellers - showed tapes to police, psychiatrists, secret service polygraphs, and college students -ONLY secret service above change - NO CORRELATION between years as investigator and ability to detect deception - multiple cues better |
|
|
Ekman, Sullivan, Frank 1999 |
- showed professionals 10 speakers telling either truth or lie -only 2 groups were able to detect deceit above change -federal law enforcement officers (73% - clinical psychologists (67% |
|
|
Parole officers? Ruback and Hopper 1986 |
- comparison of pre and post parole interview ratings of deception - results indicated that the interview did not improve, but rather lowered accuracy of predicting success on parole |
|
|
Parole Officers and Deception Detection Porter, Woolworth and Birt 2000 |
- examined ability of parole officers to detect deceit and whether empirically based training would facilitate detection skills -32 parole officers asked to judge honesty of 6 (3 false, 3 true) randomly selected videotaped targets at beginning of workshop (baseline ability) and after the workshop (post training ability) |
|
|
Results |
-age, education, years as parole officer, confidence at detecting deceit, perceived honesty of ppl in general, self reported ability to engage in deception, gender - men were more CONFIDENT but no more ACCURATE |
|
|
RESULTS about accuracy |
- parole officers baseline accuracy 40% (BELOW CHANCE) feedback: 54% Feedback/ cue- 52% AFTER TRAINING - accuracy was 76.7% - training seemed to have positive impact - especially when received cue information and accurate feedback together |
|
|
Parole officers use of cues |
Poorer performance associated with... - reliance on false cues (emotionally based cues) -vague "gut feelings" |
|
|
why are professionals so bad Stromwall & Granhag 2002 |
- examined beliefs of 104 police officers, 158 prosecutors, 251 judges regarding deception - all groups had number of inaccurate beliefs about liars Eg. they indicated that when a person is lying the are more gaze aversive - not look at questioner as often as an honest person and they fidgeted more - all groups admitted that they knew little about scientific findings on DECEPTION |
