Psychopathy and verbal indicators of deception in offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although psychopathic offenders frequently lie and manipulate others, it is unclear what strategies they use and whether there are differences between psychopathic and non-psychopathic offenders. The present study examined the association between psychopathy and verbal indicators of deception in a sample of 45 adult male offenders. Verbal indicators of deception were assessed using Statement Validity Assessment (SVA). Psychopathic offenders provided more appropriate detail and spontaneous corrections when lying. In addition, interpersonal symptoms of psychopathy were associated with the perceived credibility of lies. Although offering limited support for SVA in a forensic context, the findings suggest that it may be necessary to attend to unique indicators of deception in psychopathic offenders. Keywords: psychopathyverbal indicatorsdeception Acknowledgements Funding for this study was provided by AP-LS Division 41 Grants-in-Aids awarded to the first and second authors, and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowship awarded to the first author. We would like to thank Fred Cardwell in the Psychology Department, and George Howlett and Catherine Russell in the Visits and Correspondence Centre for their support and assistance with data collection. We would also like to thank Jennifer Lavoie and Jocelyn Conway for their assistance with coding the narratives. This study is based on a paper presented at the 2003 Psychology & Law Interdisciplinary Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland. The same dataset was the basis for a publication by Klaver, Lee, and Hart (2007). Notes 1. Inter-rater reliability guidelines are as follows: 0.40 and under is poor, 0.40–0.59 is fair, 0.60–0.74 is good, and 0.75 and above is excellent. 2. Kappa coefficient guidelines are as follows: 0.20 and under is poor, 0.21–0.40 is fair, 0.41–0.60 is moderate, 0.61–0.80 is substantial, and 0.81 and above is excellent. 3. For the purposes of analyses, disagreements about the items were resolved through discussion. 4. We recognize that our procedure for producing the true and false narratives may affect the external validity and generalizability of the findings, and may have differentially impacted the coding of the narratives. However, this ensured that offenders provided an accurate true and false narrative, which increased the internal validity of the study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".