Comparing deception detection accuracy of Czech police officers and students of economics and management
Abstract
The study looks at the ability to detect nonverbal deception among police officers and economics and management students in the Czech Republic. Respondents from police departments (n=197) and university students of human resources (n=161) completed a deception detection task and evaluated veracity of the statements of suspects in 21 videos from real crime investigations. Their evaluations were based on nonverbal behavior. Voices in the video clips were modified so that words were not recognizable, yet paraverbal voice characteristics were preserved. Results suggest respondents have a tendency to so-called lie bias, i.e. a tendency to evaluate the statements preferably as deceptive. In the evaluation of video clips, stereotypes also played a significant role. The statements of suspects of a different ethnicity, younger age or specific visual features were considered deceitful more often. Research might be beneficial for training professionals, who use techniques of deception detection in crime investigation, for identification of deception during job interviews or in other fields.
(Fulltext in Czech)
Keywords
deception detection, police officers, management, forensic psychology, work and organizational psychologyLiterature
Anolli, L., Balconi, M., & Ciceri, R. (2003). Linguistic styles in deceptive communication: Dubitative ambiguity and elliptic eluding in packaged lies. Social Behaviour & Personality, 31(7), 687–710.
Bello, R. (2006). Causes and paralinguistic correlates of interpersonal equivocation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1430–1441. Blair, J.P., & Kooi, B. (2004). The gap between training and research in the detection of deception. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 6(2), 77–83.
Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., Reimer, T. O., & McCluskey, J. D. (2012). The gap between reality and research: Another look at detecting deception in field settings. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35(4), 723–740.
Bond, C. F. (2008). Commentary: A few can catch a liar, sometimes: Comments on Ekman and O'Sullivan (1991), as well as Ekman, O'Sullivan, and Frank (1999). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1298–1300.
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–34.
Bourque, R. (2000). Lying's never a good idea, no matter who's doing it. New Hampshire Business Review, 22(4), 6.
Dalton, D. R., Metzger, M., & Wimbush, J. C. (1994). Integrity testing in personnel selection: Review and research. In G. R. Ferris (ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 12 (125–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
DePaulo, B.M. (1988). Nonverbal aspects of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 153–161.
DePaulo, B.M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.
DeVito, J.A. (2008). The Interpersonal Communication Book. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Ekman, P. (1996). Why don't we catch liars? Social Research, 63(3), 801–817.
Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913–920.
Farrow, T. F. D., Reilly, R., Rahman, T. A., Herford, A. E., Woodruff, P. W. R., & Spence, S. A. (2003). Sex and personality traits influence the difference between time taken to tell the truth or lie. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 451–460.
Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–257.
Gregg, A. P. (2007). When vying reveals lying: The timed antagonistic response alethiometer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 621–648.
Hancock, J.T., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and design: The impact of communication technologies on lying behavior. Proceedings, Conference on Computer Human Interaction, 6, 130–136.
Kraut, R.E., & Poe, D. (1980). Behavioral roots of person perception: The deception judgements of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 784–798.
Long, E.D., & Dobbins, G.H. (1992). Self-monitoring, impression management, and interview ratings: a field and laboratory study. Academic Management Proceedings, 1, 274–278.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.
Meier, R., & Short, J. (1982). The consequences of white-collar crime. In J. Edelhertz and T. Overcast (eds), White-collar crime: An agenda for research. Lexington, MA: DC Health.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.
Murnighan, J. K., Kim, J. W., & Metzger, A. R. (1993). The volunteer dilemma. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 515–538.
Mynaříková, L. (2013). Souvislosti mezi lhaním a emoční inteligencí v České republice.E-psychologie, 7(4), 15–27. Získáno z: <http://e-psycholog.eu/…narikova.pdf>.
Mynaříková, L. (2014). Vztah mezi detekcí lži a sebe-monitorováním u studentů oboru Ekonomika a management. Příspěvek na konferenci Icolle 2014, Křtiny, 16.-17.9.2014.
Mynaříková, L., & Boukalová, H. (2013). The role of stereotypes in the nonverbal deception detection. Příspěvek na European Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, 9.-12.7.2013.
Mynaříková, L., & Boukalová, H. (2014). Efekt stereotypů na detekci lži prostřednictvím neverbálních projevů chování. Psychologie pro praxi, 49(1–2), 9–19.
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675.
O'Sullivan, M. (2007). Unicorns or Tiger Woods: are lie detection experts myths or rarities? A response to „On lie detection wizards" by Bond and Uysal. Law and Human Behavior, 31(1), 117–123.
Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2009). Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 119–134.
Porter, S., Doucette, N., Earle, J., & MacNeil, B. (2008).‘Halfe the world knowes not how the other halfe lies’: Investigation of cues to deception exhibited by criminal offenders and non-offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 27–38.
Porter, S., Woodworth, M., & Birt, A. R. (2000). Truth, Lies, and Videotape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643–658.
Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 49–61.
Vrij, A. (1995). Behavioral correlates of deception in a simulated police interview. Journal of Psychology, 129, 15–28.
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and its implications for professional practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities. 2 edition. Chichester: Wiley.
Vrij, A., Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187–203.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Robbins, E., & Robinson, M. (2006). Police officers ability to detect deception in high stakes situations and in repeated lie detection tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 741–755.
Wright, G. R., Berry, C. J., & Bird, G. (2013). Deceptively simple – The deception-general ability and the need to put the liar under the spotlight. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 152.