Citation

Klaver JR, Lee Z, Spidel A, Hart SD. Leg. Crim. Psychol. 2009; 14(1): 171-182.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, British Psychological Society, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1348/135532508X289964

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Purpose. The goal of the current study was to examine psychopathy and indirect measures of deception detection.Methods. Undergraduate students (N=444) viewed video clips of adult male offenders telling true and false stories about crimes. For each story, participants rated indirect measures of deception (thinking hard, nervousness, emotional arousal, and attempting to control behaviour) and credibility. Participants also chose the story they believed to be true and rated the confidence in their decision. Offenders were rated on the psychopathy checklist - revised.Results. Consistent with past research, deception detection accuracy was at chance level and unrelated to confidence. Ratings on indirect measures by undergraduates did not distinguish true and false statements in offenders. Psychopathic offenders were less successful at deception than non-psychopathic offenders. Psychopathic traits were associated with lower perceived credibility during deception and ratings of thinking harder while lying.Conclusions. The results suggest that indirect measures of deception detection may be less useful in offender samples. Further, the findings are consistent with the general inability of psychopathic offenders to demonstrate superior deception skills in empirical studies. Indirect measures of deception uniquely related to psychopathic traits offer new insight into the relationship between psychopathy and deception.

Language: en