Lying or deliberate deception is a problem that can arise in criminal investigations. Research suggests that professional judgment is a far from reliable way of determining who is dissimulating. Special procedures have been developed, such as the polygraph and statement reliability analysis, but these have proved to be less than wholly accurate and typically produce an appreciable level of false positives. This paper explores how a method for the detection of malingering in clinical contexts, which can deliver highly reliable outcomes, might usefully be adapted for use with witnesses and suspects in criminal investigations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DenneyR. L. (1996) ‘Symptom validity testing of remote memory in a criminal forensic setting’, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Vol. 11, pp. 589–603.
2.
EkmanP.O'Sullivan (1991) ‘Who can catch a liar?’, American Psychologist, Vol. 46, pp. 913–920.
3.
GroszH. J.ZimmermanJ. (1965) ‘Experimental analysis of hysterical blindness’, Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 13, pp. 256–260.
4.
HayesW. L. (1991) ‘Statistics’, 5th edition, Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, Texas.
5.
HontsC. R.DevittM. K.WinbushM.KircherJ. C. (1996) ‘Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test’, Psychophysiology, Vol. 33, pp. 84–92.
6.
KapardisA. (1997) ‘Psychology and law’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7.
KrautR. E.PoeD. (1980) ‘Behavioural roots of person perception: The deception judgements of customs inspectors and laymen’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 784–798.
8.
MillerE. (1968) ‘A note on the visual performance of a subject with unilateral functional blindness’, Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 6, pp. 115–116.
9.
MillerE. (1986) ‘Detecting hysterical sensory symptoms: An elaboration of the forced-choice technique’, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 231–232.
10.
MillerE. (1990) ‘Single case experimentation: A seventeenth century example’, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 433–434.
11.
NiesK. J.SweetJ. J. (1994) ‘Neuropsychological assessment and malingering: A critical review of past and present strategies’, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Vol. 9, pp. 501–522.
12.
PankratzL. (1983) ‘A new technique for the assessment and modification of feigned memory deficit’, Perpetual and Motor Skills, Vol. 57, pp. 367–372.
13.
PankratzL.FaustiS. A.PeedS. (1973) ‘A forced-choice technique to evaluate deafness in the hysterical or malingering patient’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 421–422.
14.
RogersR.CruiseK. R. (1998) ‘Assessment of malingering with simulation designs: Threats to external validity’, Law and Human Behaviour, Vol. 22, pp. 273–285.
15.
UndeutschU. (1982) ‘Statement reality analysis’, in ‘Reconstructing the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials’, TrankellA. (ed.), P. A. Norsted & Sons, Stockholm.
16.
VrijA. (1993) ‘Credibility judgments of detectives: The impact of nonverbal behaviour, social skills, and physical characteristics on impression formation’, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 133, pp. 601–610.
17.
VrijA.WinkelF. W. (1993) ‘Objective and subjective indicators of deception’, Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, No. 20, pp. 51–57.
