Examining police offi cers’ response bias in judging veracity

  1. Jaume Masip 1
  2. Carmen Herrero 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2017

Volume: 29

Issue: 4

Pages: 490-495

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Background: Deception detection research has shown that, in judging veracity, police offi cers are less truth biased than non-offi cers. However, previous researchers have normally used videotaped statements where an unknown (but presumably large) number of stereotypical or real deception cues are displayed by the senders. We examined non-offi cers, novice offi cers, and experienced offi cers’ response tendencies in a more controlled situation where cue availability was severely restricted. Method: We used written vignettes describing either police-related or police-unrelated scenarios where the protagonist denied having committed a misdeed. Each vignette contained only two pieces of relevant information, one suggesting that the protagonist was lying and one suggesting that she or he was telling the truth. Results: Offi cers made fewer truth judgments than non-offi cers in judging police-relevant vignettes, but not in judging police-irrelevant vignettes. Both novice and experienced offi cers had greater judgmental confi dence than non-offi cers. Conclusions: The fi ndings are consistent with the Adaptive Lie Detection Theory (ALIED). Future research should continue to explore how the police relevance of the situation or task at hand infl uences novice and experienced offi cers’ veracity judgments.

Bibliographic References

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
  • Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643-659. doi:10.1037/a0023589
  • Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 307-342. doi:10.1177/1088868314556539
  • Hensel, J. P. (1980). The purposes of laboratory experimentation and the virtues of deliberate artificiality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 466-478. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90052-9
  • Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1991). The dark side of trust: Conceptualizing and measuring types of communicative suspicion. Communication Quarterly, 39, 325-339. doi: 10.1080/01463379109369809
  • Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect”. Communication Monographs, 66, 125-144. doi:10.1080/03637759909376468
  • Masip, J. (2014). Investigator bias. In T. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (Vol. 2, pp. 538-540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Masip, J., Alonso, H., Herrero, C., & Garrido, E. (2016). Experienced and novice officers’ Generalized Communication Suspicion and veracity judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 169-181. doi:10.1037/lhb0000169
  • Masip, J., Garrido, E., Herrero, C., Antón, C., & Alonso, H. (2006). Officers as lie detectors. Guilty before charged. In D. Chadee & J. Young (Eds.), Current themes in social psychology (pp. 187-205). Mona, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
  • 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. doi:10.1023/A:1020278620751
  • Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 16, 185-193. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379
  • Nahari, G. (2012). Elaborations on credibility judgments by professional lie detectors and laypersons: Strategies of judgment and justification. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 567-577. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.511222
  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-446. doi:10.1002/acp.1190
  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1
  • Street, C. N. H. (2015). ALIED: Humans as adaptive lie detectors. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 335-343. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.06.002
  • Street, C. N. H., Bischof, W. F., Vadillo, M. A., & Kingstone, A. (2016). Inferring others’ hidden thoughts: Smart guesses in a low diagnostic world. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 539-549. doi:10.1002/bdm.1904
  • Street, C. N. H., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). The focal account: Indirect lie detection need not access unconscious, implicit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 342-355. doi:10.1037/xap0000058
  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit. Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Data source: Dialnet