Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Deception detection: interrogators' and observers' decoding of consecutive statements.

P A Granhag1, L A Strömwall

  • 1Department of Psychology, Göteborg University, Sweden. pag@psy.gu.se

The Journal of Psychology
|April 5, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions.

Memory & cognition·2001
See all related articles

Detecting deception is challenging, as consistency over time is a commonly used but unreliable cue. Interrogators rely more on verbal cues than observers, and probing can falsely increase perceived honesty.

Area of Science:

  • Forensic Psychology
  • Deception Detection
  • Interpersonal Communication

Background:

  • Limited research exists on deception detection cues used by investigators with repeated interrogation access.
  • Understanding differences in perception between interacting interrogators and non-interacting observers is crucial.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify cues utilized by lie catchers during repeated interrogations.
  • To compare perception of suspects by face-to-face interrogators versus video-only observers.

Main Methods:

  • 24 suspects (12 liars, 12 truth-tellers) underwent three interrogations over 11 days after a staged event.
  • Veracity judgments were made by interrogators and by observers watching video recordings.
  • Cues used and perceived honesty were analyzed, considering interrogation probing.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Consistency over time was the most frequent cue for veracity judgments, yet its predictive accuracy was low.
  • Interrogators relied more on verbal cues than observers did.
  • Probed suspects were perceived as more honest (probing effect), with limited support for an honesty effect.

Conclusions:

  • The common reliance on temporal consistency for deception detection is critically flawed.
  • Investigator interaction and probing influence perceived suspect honesty, highlighting potential biases in deception detection.
  • Further research is needed to refine deception detection strategies in forensic settings.