Police, personality and the ability to deceive
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355719880568 |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Author | Bridie Scott-Parker,Monica Semrad |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Police, personality and the ability
to deceive
Monica Semrad
Adolescent Risk Research Unit, Sunshine Coast Mind and Neuroscience – Thompson Institute, University of the Sunshine
Coast, Australia;
School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Business and Law, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia; Australian Federal
Police, Australia
Bridie Scott-Parker
Adolescent Risk Research Unit, Sunshine Coast Mind and Neuroscience – Thompson Institute, University of the Sunshine
Coast, Australia;
School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Business and Law, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
Abstract
Effectiveness as an undercover operative or human source (informant) handler relies on the believability of police in
fictious roles, yet the use of deception by law enforcement in covert fields of policing and criminal interviews remains
relatively underexplored in the literature. Moreover, selection processes for these critical police roles do not currently
include a test of deception ability. This study investigates the lie production and truth production ability of 50 Australian
police officers-in-training by comparing their results on a game of deception with their personality traits as tested by the
HEXACO-PI-R-100 item version, the Short-D3 and the MSCEIT. Results indicate that sex, age, dark triad traits and
emotional intelligence have no relationship with either truth or lie production. HEXACO results indicate low social self-
esteem was related to high lie production ability. Further research is needed to explore extraversion, social skills, and
confidence as they relate to the credibility of a ‘storyteller’.
Keywords
Lie production, police, law enforcement, selection tests, personality traits, individual differences, lying, undercover
Submitted 04 Nov 2018, Revise received 27 Jul 2019, accepted 10 Sep 2019
Introduction
Since time immemorial there has been rivalry between
police and criminals. Whereas those‘fighting the good fight’
have limitationsimposed by legislation andhuman integrity,
the criminal ele ment has no such r estrictions. Hist orically,
our system of justice has attempted to eventhe playing field
by training members of the judicial system to detect decep-
tion and uncover the truth. Unfortunately,decades of studies
conducted all around the world, including experiments with
participants comprising police, judges and psychologists,
show accurate lie detection to be little better than chance
(DePaulo, 1994; D ePaulo et al., 2003; E kman and O’Sulli-
van, 1991; Porteret al., 2000). Moreover, a meta-analysis of
the extant literature (Bond and DePaulo, 2008) has demon-
strated that lie detection is not possible through behavioural
indicators alone (Burgoon and Buller, 1996; Volbert and
Banse, 2014; Vrij,2014). Thus, unsurprisingly, lie detection
tests are not used in the Australian justice system (Freckel-
ton, 2004; McMahon, 2003).
Fortunately, however, the inability to distinguish lies
from truth is common to all; offenders have as much
Corresponding author:
Monica Semrad, University of the Sunshine Coast, 12 Innovation Parkway,
Birtinya, Queensland, 4575, Australia.
Email: M_S329@student.usc.edu.au
International Journalof
Police Science & Management
2020, Vol. 22(1) 50–61
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1461355719880568
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
To continue reading
Request your trial