{"title":"抓住骗子:为什么这么难","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.