Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 469–480 | Cite as

“He's guilty!”: Investigator Bias in Judgments of Truth and Deception

  • Christian A. Meissner
  • Saul M. Kassin


Detecting deception is an inherently difficult task, but one that plays a critical role for law enforcement investigators in the interrogation room. In general, research has failed to indicate that performance in this domain is improved by training or prior experience. A signal detection framework is applied to the paradigm to better conceptualize the influence of these two factors. We found that although neither factor influenced discrimination accuracy, there was an effect on response bias such that training and prior experience appeared to increase the likelihood of responding “deceit” as opposed to “truth.” This “investigator bias” was observed both in a review of the literature and in this study of North American law enforcement investigators who took part in a forensically based deception-detection task. Possible theoretical mechanisms and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

deception interrogation response bias 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bull, R. (1989). Can training enhance the detection of deception? In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 83-99). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Chahal, K., & Cassidy, T. (1995). Deception and its detection in children: A study of adult accuracy. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1, 237-245.Google Scholar
  4. DePaulo, B. M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 83-86.Google Scholar
  5. DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249-267.Google Scholar
  6. DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323-370). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. deTurck, M. A. (1991). Training observers to detect spontaneous deception: Effects of gender. Communication Reports, 4, 81-89.Google Scholar
  8. deTurck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1990). Training observers to detect deception: Effects of self-monitoring and rehearsal. Human Communication Research, 16, 603-620.Google Scholar
  9. Donaldson, W. (1992). Measuring recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 275-277.Google Scholar
  10. Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991).Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.Google Scholar
  11. Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263-266.Google Scholar
  12. Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659-676.Google Scholar
  13. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). Interrogative suggestibility: Factor analysis of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS 2). Personality and Individual Differences, 13(4), 479-481.Google Scholar
  15. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52(3), 221-233.Google Scholar
  17. Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I'm innocent!”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499-516.Google Scholar
  18. Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. J., & Savitsky, K. (2001). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  19. Koehnken, G. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does it work? Social Behavior, 2, 1-17.Google Scholar
  20. Kraut, R. E., & Poe, D. (1980). Behavioral roots of person perception: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 784-798.Google Scholar
  21. Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88(2), 429-496.Google Scholar
  22. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1990). Response bias: Characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and “nonparametric” indexes. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 401-413.Google Scholar
  23. MacMillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user's guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. MacMillan, N. A., & Kaplan, H. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 185-199.Google Scholar
  25. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.Google Scholar
  26. Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The social psychology of police interrogation: The theory and classification of true and false confessions. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 16, 189-251.Google Scholar
  27. Porter, S., Woodworth, M., & Birt, A. R. (2000). Truth, lies, and videotape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643-658.Google Scholar
  28. Radelet, M. L., Bedau, H. A., & Putnam, C. E. (1992). In spite of innocence: Erroneous convictions in capital cases. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 111-124). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Ruby, C. L., & Brigham, J. C. (1996). A criminal schema: The role of chronicity, race, and socioeconomic status in law enforcement officials' perceptions of others. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 95-112.Google Scholar
  31. Scheck, B. C., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  32. Simon, D. (1991). Homicide: A year on the killing streets. New York: Ivy Books.Google Scholar
  33. Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34-50.Google Scholar
  34. Thompson, S. C. (1978). Detection of social cues: A signal detection theory analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 452-455.Google Scholar
  35. Vessel, D. (1998, October). Conducting successful interrogations. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 1-6.Google Scholar
  36. Vrij, A. (1993). Credibility judgments of detectives: The impact of nonverbal behavior, social skills, and physical characteristics on impression formation. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 601-610.Google Scholar
  37. Vrij, A. (1994). The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 117-132.Google Scholar
  38. Vrij, A., & Graham, S. (1997). Individual differences between liars and the ability to detect lies. Expert Evidence, 5, 144-148.Google Scholar
  39. Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Who killed my relative? Police officers' ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7, 119-132.Google Scholar
  40. Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187-203.Google Scholar
  41. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Alton, A. O. (1984). Learning to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 519-528.Google Scholar
  42. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Colella, M. J. (1985). Learning to detect deception from three communication channels. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 188-194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian A. Meissner
    • 1
  • Saul M. Kassin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida International UniversityMiami
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWilliams CollegeWilliamstown

Personalised recommendations