Catching Liars: Why it can be so Hard

S. A. Johnston
{"title":"Catching Liars: Why it can be so Hard","authors":"S. A. Johnston","doi":"10.4172/2157-7145.1000361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Considerable research reveals that most people, including mental health and law enforcement professionals, are \n remarkably poor at catching liars, doing no better than chance. Our comparative inability to detect deception poses a \n profound threat to the reliability of forensic psychological and psychiatric evaluations of criminal defendants intended \n to assess such things as current mental status and future dangerousness. In forensic evaluations, where one’s \n personal freedom, even life, can be at stake, some clients, perhaps more than some, will inevitably dissemble. This \n essay provides a brief and non-technical description of the research my students and we have conducted designed \n to better understand the reasons for which detecting deception is so difficult. In this regard, and consistent with \n much previous research, we discovered that in assessing the verbal content of other persons’ statements, it is \n possible with a good degree of reliability to differentiate between true and deceptive statements of criminal \n defendants. We also found that the “truth” is itself a multidimensional concept and that truthful versus false \n statements differ with regard to both the quantity and quality of information contained in a statement. While multiple \n challenges exist to accurately detect deception, our data strongly suggested that it may be so difficult to catch liars \n because it requires more cognitive work to identify false rather than true statements. Indeed, the data indicate that \n determining a statement is true appears to involve a one-step cognitive process while determining a statement is \n false appears to involve a two-step cognitive process, whereby a false statement is recognized as lacking attributes \n of truthfulness while simultaneously manifesting attributes of deception. That it would be more difficult to recognize \n falsehoods and require more cognitive work does not seem surprising considering that the identification of a lie \n forces us to look below and reject the surface meaning of a statement concluding that the statement is not simply \n inaccurate but actually intended to deceive or mislead us. On a more positive note, even though deception is \n ubiquitous in human relationships and a significant number of dangerous liars will be successful, the accuracy of \n deception detection can be improved by the application of the findings from verbal content analysis identifying those \n statement attributes characteristic of truthfulness versus deception. It would seem especially important for forensic \n psychologists and psychiatrists to be aware of research capable of assisting them in assessing the veracity of \n criminal defendants participating in court-ordered evaluations.","PeriodicalId":90216,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensics research","volume":" ","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensics research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7145.1000361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Considerable research reveals that most people, including mental health and law enforcement professionals, are remarkably poor at catching liars, doing no better than chance. Our comparative inability to detect deception poses a profound threat to the reliability of forensic psychological and psychiatric evaluations of criminal defendants intended to assess such things as current mental status and future dangerousness. In forensic evaluations, where one’s personal freedom, even life, can be at stake, some clients, perhaps more than some, will inevitably dissemble. This essay provides a brief and non-technical description of the research my students and we have conducted designed to better understand the reasons for which detecting deception is so difficult. In this regard, and consistent with much previous research, we discovered that in assessing the verbal content of other persons’ statements, it is possible with a good degree of reliability to differentiate between true and deceptive statements of criminal defendants. We also found that the “truth” is itself a multidimensional concept and that truthful versus false statements differ with regard to both the quantity and quality of information contained in a statement. While multiple challenges exist to accurately detect deception, our data strongly suggested that it may be so difficult to catch liars because it requires more cognitive work to identify false rather than true statements. Indeed, the data indicate that determining a statement is true appears to involve a one-step cognitive process while determining a statement is false appears to involve a two-step cognitive process, whereby a false statement is recognized as lacking attributes of truthfulness while simultaneously manifesting attributes of deception. That it would be more difficult to recognize falsehoods and require more cognitive work does not seem surprising considering that the identification of a lie forces us to look below and reject the surface meaning of a statement concluding that the statement is not simply inaccurate but actually intended to deceive or mislead us. On a more positive note, even though deception is ubiquitous in human relationships and a significant number of dangerous liars will be successful, the accuracy of deception detection can be improved by the application of the findings from verbal content analysis identifying those statement attributes characteristic of truthfulness versus deception. It would seem especially important for forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to be aware of research capable of assisting them in assessing the veracity of criminal defendants participating in court-ordered evaluations.
抓住骗子:为什么这么难
大量研究表明,包括心理健康和执法专业人员在内的大多数人都非常不善于抓住骗子,只不过是偶然。我们相对无法检测欺骗行为,这对刑事被告的法医心理和精神评估的可靠性构成了严重威胁,这些评估旨在评估当前的精神状态和未来的危险性。在法医评估中,一个人的人身自由,甚至生命都可能受到威胁,一些客户,也许比一些客户更多,将不可避免地掩饰自己。这篇文章对我的学生和我们进行的研究进行了简短而非技术性的描述,旨在更好地理解检测欺骗如此困难的原因。在这方面,与之前的许多研究一致,我们发现,在评估他人陈述的口头内容时,可以很好地区分刑事被告的真实陈述和欺骗性陈述。我们还发现,“真相”本身就是一个多维的概念,真实陈述与虚假陈述在陈述中所包含信息的数量和质量方面都有所不同。虽然准确检测欺骗行为存在多种挑战,但我们的数据强烈表明,抓住骗子可能非常困难,因为识别虚假陈述而非真实陈述需要更多的认知工作。事实上,数据表明,确定一个陈述是真的似乎涉及一个一步的认知过程,而确定一个叙述是假的似乎涉及两步的认知程序,即虚假陈述被认为缺乏真实性,同时表现出欺骗性。识别谎言会更加困难,需要更多的认知工作,这似乎并不奇怪,因为对谎言的识别迫使我们向下看,拒绝接受一个声明的表面含义,并得出结论,即该声明不仅不准确,而且实际上是为了欺骗或误导我们,尽管欺骗在人际关系中无处不在,大量危险的骗子会成功,但通过应用言语内容分析的结果,识别出真实与欺骗的陈述属性,可以提高欺骗检测的准确性。对于法医心理学家和精神病学家来说,了解能够帮助他们评估刑事被告参与法庭命令评估的真实性的研究似乎尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信