Against our will: Men, women, and rape

Correspondence should be addressed to Brian A. Nosek, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, 102 Gilmer Hall, Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA. E-mail: nosek@virginia.edu This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (MH-41328, MH-01533, MH-57672, and MH-68447) and the National Science Foundation (SBR-9422241, SBR-9709924, and REC-0634041). The authors are grateful for technical support from N. Sriram, Ethan Sutin, and Lili Wu. Related information is available at http://briannosek.com/ and http://projectimplicit.net/ EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2007, 1 – 53, iFirst article

https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~dchugh/articles/2007_ERSP.pdf

Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes

The Spirit Level. Why Equality is Better for Everyone

Human Development Report 2006

In this article we argue that self-deception evolved to facilitate interpersonal deception by allowing people to avoid the cues to conscious deception that might reveal deceptive intent. Self-deception has two additional advantages: It eliminates the costly cognitive load that is typically associated with deceiving, and it can minimize retribution if the deception is discovered. Beyond its role in specific acts of deception, self-deceptive self-enhancement also allows people to display more confidence than is warranted, which has a host of social advantages. The question then arises of how the self can be both deceiver and deceived. We propose that this is achieved through dissociations of mental processes, including conscious versus unconscious memories, conscious versus unconscious attitudes, and automatic versus controlled processes. Given the variety of methods for deceiving others, it should come as no surprise that self-deception manifests itself in a number of different psychological processes, and we discuss various types of self-deception. We then discuss the interpersonal versus intrapersonal nature of self-deception before considering the levels of consciousness at which the self can be deceived. Finally, we contrast our evolutionary approach to self-deception with current theories and debates in psychology and consider some of the costs associated with self-deception.

http://humancond.org/_media/papers/vonhippel_trivers_11_self_deception.pdf

The evolution and psychology of self-deception

Part I. Introduction 1. Research on deception detection: past and present P. A. Granhag and L. A. Stromwall Part II. Lie-Detection Techniques: 2. Discerning lies from truths: behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathways of intuition B. M. DePaulo and W. L. Morris 3. Statement validity analysis and the detection of the truth G. Kohnken 4. Reality monitoring and detection of deception S. L. Sporer 5. The psychophysiological detection of deception C. R. Honts Part III. Special Problems Facing a Lie-Catcher: 6. Lies travel: mendacity in a mobile world C. F. Bond and S. R. Rao 7. Coping with suggestion and deception in children's accounts G. Davies 8. The detection of false confessions S. Kassin 9. Crime-related amnesia as a form of deception S. A. Christianson and H. Merckelbach Part IV. Enhancing Lie-Detection Accuracy: 10. Practitioners' beliefs about deception L. A. Stromwall, P. A. Granhag and M. Hartwig 11. Training to detect deception from behavioural cues: attempts and problems R. Bull 12. The wizards of deception detection M. O'Sullivan and P. Ekman 13. Guidelines to catch a liar A Vrij Part V. Conclusions: 14. Research on deception detection: future challenges P. A. Granhag and L. A. Stromwall.

/pdf/the-detection-of-deception-in-forensic-contexts-45ijxzyr1w.pdf

The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts

Deception detection has largely failed to investigate guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies. In this study, mock suspects (n=82) were interrogated by police trainees (n=82) who either were or were not trained in the technique to strategically use the evidence (the SUE technique). Analyses revealed that guilty suspects to a higher degree than innocent suspects applied strategies in order to appear truthful. Guilty suspects reported diverse strategies, while innocent suspects reported the strategy to tell the truth like it had happened, indicating a belief in the visibility of innocence. The realism in the suspects’ expectation about how their veracity was judged was largely dependent on the way in which they had been interrogated. The truth-telling suspects who were interrogated according to the SUE technique were optimistic about being judged as truthful; this optimism was warranted as the vast majority of them were classified as truthful. The SUE technique seems to help (a) spotting guilty su...

Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations

Research on deception detection in legal contexts has neglected the question of how the use of evidence can affect deception detection accuracy. In this study, police trainees (N=82) either were or were not trained in strategically using the evidence when interviewing lying or truth telling mock suspects (N=82). The trainees' strategies as well as liars' and truth tellers' counter-strategies were analyzed. Trained interviewers applied different strategies than did untrained. As a consequence of this, liars interviewed by trained interviewers were more inconsistent with the evidence compared to liars interviewed by untrained interviewers. Trained interviewers created and utilized the statement-evidence consistency cue, and obtained a considerably higher deception detection accuracy rate (85.4%) than untrained interviewers (56.1%).

Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works.

In this paper we examined beliefs about deception held by legal professionals. Three groups of presumed expert lie-catchers were investigated: police officers ( n =104), prosecutors ( n =158), and judges ( n =251). The experts' beliefs about deception were remarkably inconsistent with the general pattern resulting from studies mapping actual cues to deception. For example, a majority of police officers believed there is a strong relationship between (a) deceptive behaviour and gaze aversion and (b) deceptive behaviour and an increase in body movements. The scientific literature does not support this view. Furthermore, all three professional groups believed that truthful consecutive statements are more consistent than deceptive, and that it is easier to detect deception in interactive than non-interactive contexts. Research on deception shows the opposite. For five of the seven investigated items we found significant between-group differences. Both the genesis and the implications of these differences are ...

How to Detect Deception? Arresting the Beliefs of Police Officers, Prosecutors and Judges

Deception detection research has largely neglected an important aspect of many investigations, namely that there often exists evidence against a suspect. This study examined the potentials of timing of evidence disclosure as a deception detection tool. The main prediction was that observers (N = 116) would obtain higher accuracy rates if the evidence against the suspects (N = 58) was presented in a late rather than early stage of the interrogation. This prediction was based on the idea that late evidence disclosure would trigger lack of consistencies between the liars’ stories and the evidence; this could be used as a cue to deception. The main prediction received support. Late disclosure observers obtained an overall accuracy of 61.7%, compared to 42.9% of Early disclosure observers. Deceptive statements were identified with high accuracy (67.6%) in Late disclosure, indicating that the technique in this form is beneficial mainly for pinpointing lies.

/pdf/detecting-deception-via-strategic-disclosure-of-evidence-57imtmeu8i.pdf

Leif A. Strömwall

Papers

The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts

Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations

Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works.

How to Detect Deception? Arresting the Beliefs of Police Officers, Prosecutors and Judges

Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence.