Exploring liars’ strategies for creating deceptive reports

Drew A. Leins · Ronald P. Fisher · Stephen J. Ross

134 citations0/0 files storedLegal and Criminological Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Deception detection and forensic psychology Misinformation and Its Impacts Memory Processes and Influences

Abstract

Purpose. Most past research on detecting deception has relied on the assumption that liars often fabricate a story to account for their whereabouts, whereas truth tellers simply recall an autobiographical memory. However, little research has examined whether liars, when free to choose the topic of their own reports, will actually choose to fabricate information rather than use a different strategy for constructing their lies. We describe two studies that evaluated liars’ strategies for selecting the content of their lies when given the freedom to choose whatever content they desired. Method. In Studies 1 ( N = 35) and 2 ( N = 22) participants (a) described a truthful story in order to identify a salient event, then (b) lied about the event, and finally (c) described their strategies for choosing the content of the reported lies. Results. Liars overwhelmingly chose to report a previously experienced event for the time period they were to be deceptive about (67% and 86% in Studies 1 and 2, respectively). The majority of discrete details reported were experienced, occurred relatively frequently, occurred relatively recently, and were typical or routine. Conclusions. These findings have significant implications for the development of cognitive‐based interventions for detecting deception. In particular, some methods of deception that rely on content analysis may be ineffective if liars choose to report previous experiences rather than outright fabrications.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 134 citations exist upstream.

References

2006Accuracy of Deception Judgments 2000Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice 2001Detecting lies and deceit: the psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice 2007Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order.2005Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies.2006Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations 1989Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence 2006Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load

Cited by

2017Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation 2012Two heads are better than one? How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception 2016Deception and Cognitive Load: Expanding Our Horizon with a Working Memory Model 2018Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues 2012Sorting the Liars from the Truth Tellers: The Benefits of Asking Unanticipated Questions on Lie Detection

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.