I meet many of these parents when they show up in the courtroom jury box, ready to perform their civic duty. “Do any of you consider yourselves to be particularly good at judging credibility?” I ask a pool of potential jurors during voir dire.  Inevitably, several hands shoot up.  When I ask “Why?” in most cases, the answer is predictably some version of “I have kids.”

In some ways, the stated basis for their expertise makes perfect sense.  Although it isn´t having kids that magically transforms parents into expert lie detectors, it is observing the mannerisms of one´s own children over time that provides a behavioral baseline against which to compare divergent behavior—which may indicate deception.

Yet relational familiarity is a two way street.  Receivers gauge the authenticity of information based on a speaker´s normal behavior, but they also transmit their own clues about whether or not they are suspicious.  Deceivers are thus able to improve their craft by practicing deception within close relationships and monitoring reaction for signs of distrust.

In trial, because my jurors and witnesses will not know each other, relational familiarity will not give either party an advantage in the deception arena.  Yet because many of my cases have involved child or teenage witnesses, the psychology of adolescent credibility remains relevant.

Read original article


Tags: