Confounding influences on police detection of suspiciousness

Johnson, Richard R.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.009

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some research suggests that, compared with American Whites, Hispanics communicate in a more animated and energetic way (Albert & Nelson, 1993; Johnson, 2006). Rather than high involvement being marked by increasing composure, relaxation, and decreasing interruptions or talk overs, it is possible that Hispanic cultural interaction norms might mark high involvement with increased energy leading to more talk overs, more interruptions, and vocal excitement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying engagement: Measuring player involvement in human–avatar interactions

Norris

Weger

Bullinger

et al. 2014

Computers in Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigated the merits of using an established system for rating behavioral cues of involvement in human dyadic interactions (i.e., face-to-face conversation) to measure involvement in human-avatar interactions. Gameplay audio-video and self-report data from a Feasibility Trial and Free Choice study of an effective peer resistance skill building simulation game (DRAMA-RAMA™) were used to evaluate reliability and validity of the rating system when applied to human-avatar interactions. The Free Choice study used a revised game prototype that was altered to be more engaging. Both studies involved girls enrolled in a public middle school in Central Florida that served a predominately Hispanic (greater than 80%), low-income student population. Audio-video data were coded by two raters, trained in the rating system. Self-report data were generated using measures of perceived realism, predictability and flow administered immediately after game play. Hypotheses for reliability and validity were supported: Reliability values mirrored those found in the human dyadic interaction literature. Validity was supported by factor analysis, significantly higher levels of involvement in Free Choice as compared to Feasibility Trial players, and correlations between involvement dimension sub scores and self-report measures. Results have implications for the science of both skill-training intervention research and game design.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying engagement: Measuring player involvement in human–avatar interactions

Norris

Weger

Bullinger

et al. 2014

Computers in Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonverbal behavior is culturally mediated. For example, Black Americans display more gaze aversion than do White Americans (Johnson, 2006a(Johnson, , 2006bLaFrance & Mayo, 1976, 1978, and people from Turkey and Morocco who are living in the Netherlands show more gaze aversion than do native Dutch people (Van Rossum, 1998;Vrij, Dragt, & Koppelaar, 1992). It thus appears that looking into the eyes of the conversation partner is typical Caucasian behavior that is often not displayed by non-Caucasian individuals.…”

Section: Neglect Of Interpersonal Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Vrij

Granhag

Porter

2010

Psychol Sci Public Interest

380

356

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such guidance in the present article.The article consists of two parts. The first section focuses on pitfalls to avoid and outlines the major factors that lead to failures in catching liars. Sixteen reasons are clustered into three categories: (a) a lack of motivation to detect lies (because accepting a fabrication might sometimes be more tolerable or pleasant than understanding the truth), (b) difficulties associated with lie detection, and (c) common errors made by lie detectors. We will argue that the absence of nonverbal and verbal cues uniquely related to deceit (akin Pinocchio's growing nose), the existence of typically small differences between truth tellers and liars, and the fact that liars actively try to appear credible contribute to making lie detection a difficult task. Other factors that add to difficulty is that lies are often embedded in truths, that lie detectors often do not receive adequate feedback about their judgments and therefore cannot learn from their mistakes, and that some methods to detect lies violate conversation rules and are therefore difficult to apply in real life. The final factor to be discussed in this category is that some people are just very good liars.The common errors lie detectors make that we have identified are examining the wrong cues (in part, because professionals are taught these wrong cues); placing too great an emphasis on nonverbal cues (in part, because training encourages such emphasis); tending to too-readily interpret certain behaviors, particularly signs of nervousness, as diagnostic of deception; placing too great an emphasis on simplistic rules of thumb; and neglecting inter-and intrapersonal differences. We also discuss two final errors: that many interview strategies advocated by police manuals can impair lie detection, and that professionals tend to overestimate their ability to detect deceit.The second section of this article discusses opportunities for maximizing one's chances of detecting lies and elaborates strategies for improving one's lie-detection skills. Within this section, we first provide five recommendations for avoiding the common errors in detecting lies that we identified earlier in the article. Next, we discuss a relatively recent wave of innovative lie-detection research that goes one step further and introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and t...

show abstract

“…However, some researchers (Lassiter, Beers et al, 2002; point to numerous bias issues even when best camera focus practices are implemented. For instance, in an analysis of police interrogations conducted by Kassin and associates (2005), they found that there is a law enforcement tendency to view suspects with suspicion and their communicative demeanors as deceptive; with such bias systemic and related to judgment inaccuracies (Johnson, 2006;Kassin et al, 2005). Suspects employing gaze aversion and expressing emotions associated with guilt and shame are likely to be viewed as making deceptive statements, although such behavior is common among persons conveying truthful declarations (Bradford et al, 2013).…”

Section: Camera Perspective Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Police recording of custodial interrogations

Bang

Stanton

Hemmens

et al. 2018

International Journal of Police Science & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Supreme Court of the United States recognized in its seminal case Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) that police used overly coercive techniques during custodial interrogations to obtain confessions. Yet, post Miranda, police officers still utilize legal coercive and deceptive techniques during custodial interrogations. Unfortunately, some of these techniques have proven to be so coercive that they lead to false confessions and innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit. Some states have taken measures to protect the accused during custodial interrogations and require the police to record custodial interrogations under certain conditions. The policies and procedures that mandate interrogation recording vary in scope and by state. This article sheds light on the different statutes and policies implemented at the state level that regulate custodial interrogation recording.

show abstract

Confounding influences on police detection of suspiciousness

Cited by 20 publications

References 17 publications

Quantifying engagement: Measuring player involvement in human–avatar interactions

Quantifying engagement: Measuring player involvement in human–avatar interactions

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Police recording of custodial interrogations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About