Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Police Lie Detection Accuracy: The Effect of Lie Scenario

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

An Erratum to this article was published on 11 November 2009

Abstract

Although most people are not better than chance in detecting deception, some groups of police professionals have demonstrated significant lie detection accuracy. One reason for this difference may be that the types of lies police are asked to judge in scientific experiments often do not represent the types of lies they see in their profession. Across 23 studies, involving 31 different police groups in eight countries, police officers tested with lie detection scenarios using high stakes lies (i.e., the lie was personally involving and/or resulted in substantial rewards or punishments for the liar) were significantly more accurate than law enforcement officials tested with low stakes lies. Face validity and construct validity of various lie scenarios are differentiated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner, 25, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–79). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37(3), 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477–492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Bond, G. D. (2008). Deception detection expertise. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 339–351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1937). Psychology as a science of objective relations. Philosophy of Science, 4, 227–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1096–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *DePaulo, B., & Pfeifer, R. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1985/2001). Telling Lies. New York: Norton.

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 288–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & O’Sullivan, M. (1988). Smiles when lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 414–420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. (2008). Scoring and reporting: A response to Bond. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1315–1317.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Elaad, E. (2003). Effects of feedback on the overestimated capacity to detect lies and the underestimated ability to tell lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, T. H., & deTurck, M. A. (1998). The behavioral correlates of sanctioned and unsanctioned deceptive communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, T. H., deTurck, M. A., & Young, M. J. (1995). Baseline familiarity in lie detection. Communication Research Reports, 12, 160–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G. (2005). Research methods in detecting deception research. In J. Harrigan, K. Scherer, & R. Rosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of nonverbal behavior research (pp. 341–368). London: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stakes lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1429–1439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G., & Feeley, T. H. (2003). To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 58–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. G., & Hurley, C. M. (2008). Detecting deception and emotion in police officers. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Frank, M. G., Matsumoto, D. M., Ekman, P., Kang, S., & Kurylo, A. (2008). Improving the ability to recognize micro expressions of emotion. Manuscript under review.

  • Funder, D. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Garido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2004). Police officer’s credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 254–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. III: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Seminar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, L. A., & Orne, M. T. (1963). The effects of heightened motivation on the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 408–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwell, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwell, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2004). Police officers’ lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely versus observing video. Police Quarterly, 7, 429–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. A. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 211–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Köhnken, G. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does it work? Social Behaviour, 2, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mann, S., & Vrij, A. (2006). Police officers’ judgements of veracity, tenseness, cognitive load and attempted behavioral control in real-life police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2006). Looking through the eyes of an accurate lie detector. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 7, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigative bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. (2007). Unicorns or Tiger Woods? Are expert lie detectors myths or rarities? A response to “On lie detection “wizards”. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 117–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *O’Sullivan, M. (2008a). Homeruns and humbugs: A response to Bond and DePaulo. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 493–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. (2008b, February). Lie detection accuracy and aging. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque, NM.

  • O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In P. A. Granhag & L. Strömwell (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 269–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Vrij, A. (1993). Credibility of judgments of detectives: The impact of nonverbal behavior, social skills, and physical characteristics on impression formation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(5), 601–610.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Vrij, A. (1994). The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Brown, L., & Mann, S. (2006). Detecting lies in young children, adolescents and adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1225–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). Police officers’ ability to detect deceit: The benefit of indirect deception detection measures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Vrij, A., & Graham, S. (1997). Individual differences between liars and the ability to detect lies. Expert Evidence, 5, 144–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Heaven, S. (1999). Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001a). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001b). Who killed my relative? Police officers ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 7, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Leale, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interviewing style. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 499–518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Vrij, A., Mann, S., Robbins, E., & Robinson, M. (2006). Police officers ability to detect deception in high stakes situations and in repeated lie detection tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 741–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, G. (2007, July). The development of a deception detection task: The importance of emotion. Annual Conference of the Division of Forensic Psychology, British Psychological Society, University of York, UK.

  • Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., Colella, M. J., & Alton, A. O. (1984). Anchoring in the detection of deception and leakage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94117, USA

    Maureen O’Sullivan & Jaspreet Tiwana

  2. University of Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, USA

    Mark G. Frank & Carolyn M. Hurley

Authors
  1. Maureen O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark G. Frank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolyn M. Hurley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jaspreet Tiwana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maureen O’Sullivan.

Additional information

* indicates references analyzed in this study.

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9191-y

About this article

Cite this article

O’Sullivan, M., Frank, M.G., Hurley, C.M. et al. Police Lie Detection Accuracy: The Effect of Lie Scenario. Law Hum Behav 33, 530–538 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation