Deception detection: Interrogators' and observers' decoding of consecutive statements

Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied

Volumn 135, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 603-620

  Granhag, Pär Anders ^a   Strömwall, Leif A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cues to deception; Diagnostic values; Interpersonal deception; Interrogators and observers; Repeated interrogations

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; RECUMBENCY; SPEECH;

CUES; DECEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; SIGNAL DETECTION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH;

EID: 0035524316     PISSN: 00223980     EISSN: 19401019     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00223980109603723     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.
2. Brandt, D. R., Miller, G. R., & Hocking, J. E. (1982). Familiarity and lie detection. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 276-290.
3. Bruning, J. L., & Kintz, B. L. (1968). Computational handbook of statistics. Atlanta, GA: Scott, Foresman.
4. Buller, D. B., Comstock, J., Aune, R. K., & Strzyzewski, K. D. (1989). The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 155-170.
5. Buller, D. B., Stiff, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Behavioral adaptation in deceptive transactions. Fact or fiction: Reply to Levine and McComack. (1996). Human Commu-nication Research, 22, 589-603.
6. Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Comstock, J. (1991). Interpersonal deception: 1. Deceivers’ reactions to receivers’ suspicions and probing. Communication Monographs, 58, 1-24.
7. Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Hunsaker, F. G. (1991). Interpersonal deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. Communication Monographs, 58, 25-40.
8. Burgoon, J. K., & Newton, D. A. (1991). Applying a social meaning model to relational messages of conversational involvement: Comparing participant and observer perspec-tives. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 96-113.
9. Feeley, T. H., & deTurck, M. A. (1997, May). Perceptions of communication as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer: The case of lie detection. Paper presented to the International Communication Association Convention, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
10. Gilbert, D. T., & Krull, D. S. (1988). Seeing less and knowing more: The benefits of perceptual ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 193-202.
11. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733-740.
12. Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2000a). Deception detection: Examining the consistency heuristic. In C. M. Breur, M. M. Kommer, J. F. Nijboer, & J. M. Reintjes (Eds.), New trends in criminal investigation and evidence II (pp. 309-321). Antwerp, Belgium: Intersentia.
13. Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2000b). The effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 6, 197-218.
14. Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2001). Deception detection based on repeated inter-rogations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 85-101.
15. Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (in press). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and non-verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
16. Greuel, L. (1992). Police officers’ beliefs about cues associated with deception in rape cases. In F. Lösel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 234-239). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
17. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. Chichester, England: Wiley.
18. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
19. Levine, T. R., & McComack, S. A. (1996a). Can behavioral adaptation explain the probing effect? Rejoinder to Buller et al. Human Communication Research, 22, 604-613.
20. Levine, T. R., & McComack, S. A. (1996b). A critical analysis of the behavioral adapta-tion explanation of the probing effect. Human Communication Research, 22, 575-588.
21. Levine, T. R., McComack, S. A., & Aleman, C. G. (1998). Ask and you shall believe: Behavioral adaptation, confidence, and heuristic-based explanations of the probing effect. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Speech, University of Hawaii.
22. Stiff, J. B., & Miller, G. R. (1986). “Come to think of it…” Interrogative probes, deceptive communication, and deception detection. Human Communication Research, 12, 339-357.
23. Street, R. L., Mulac, A., & Wiemann, J. M. (1988). Speech evaluation differences as a function of perspective (participant versus observer) and presentational medium. Human Communication Research, 14, 333-363.
24. Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (in press). How to detect deception: Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Psychology, Crime, and Law.
25. Vrij, A. (1999). Interviewing to detect deception. In A. Memon & R. Bull (Eds.), Hand-book of the psychology of interviewing (pp. 317-326). Chicester, England: Wiley.
26. Wagenaar, W. A., van Koppen, P. J., & Crombag, H. E M. (1993). Anchored narratives. The psychology of criminal evidence. New York: St. Martin’s Press.