	The findings from Klaver, et al. and Lee, et al. follow the trends of deception detection literature examining non-institutionalized populations. Namely, that there appears to be no single, objective, nonverbal cue to deception in all contexts, and that future research should focus on eliciting verbal cues to deception. As mentioned in the preceding section, experts in the field of deception detection posit verbal cues may be more promising than nonverbal cues because people process true and false statements differently. 
Klaver and colleagues used the videotapes from their previous examination of verbal and nonverbal cues to deception in psychopathic inmates as stimuli for a follow-up study. Here, the researchers showed the videos to undergraduates and had them rate indirect measures of deception and credibility. The undergraduates reported having to think harder when viewing videos of psychopathic offenders, especially when the offenders were lying. Participants also rated psychopathic offenders as appearing less nervous than non-psychopathic offenders. This finding, in particular, is interesting because lower perceptions of nervousness are typically associated with truth-tellers in non-offender populations.
 Unfortunately, Klaver and colleagues only allowed their offender participants five minutes of free recall to recount their true and false stories. As such, there is no research examining the way psychopaths adjust their stories to fit the needs of an interrogation. 
Research in the deception detection field has essentially proven that there is no single, objective cue to deception, that people do no discriminate between liars and truth-tellers at a rate substantially better than chance, and that even if there are cues to deception, they may not be strong enough for laypeople to notice and use. Psychopaths, on the other hand, use lies and manipulation regularly to advance their own personal goals. Because they have more practice and experience fewer moral qualms about lying by definition of being psychopathic, individuals who rank higher on certain aspects of the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy checklist may employ different strategies in an interrogation setting than their non-psychopathic counterparts. 
	This project thus addresses the question of whether individuals in a non-institutionalized setting who score higher on measures of the Hare SRP-III behave differently in an interrogation setting than those who score lower. Further, this project seeks to determine whether strategies differ when the more psychopathic individuals are in the role of the interrogator or the suspect, and how these two roles interact. Finally, this project aims to investigate whether lie catchers are better able to discriminate between truths and lies as a function of scores on the Hare SRP-III for both the liars/truth-tellers and the lie catchers.
	This project hypothesizes scores on the Hare SRP-III will significantly influence behaviors of both interrogators and suspects in an interrogation setting. Specifically, individuals who score higher on the Hare SRP-III will evade questions and manipulate the situation to their advantage in the role of the suspect to a greater degree than those who score lower. Similarly, high-scoring individuals in the interrogator role will appear to be more in control of the interrogation and manipulate the questioning to make the suspect more uncomfortable than their lower-scoring counterparts. Lastly, lie catchers will respond more positively to whichever sender (interrogator vs. suspect) scores higher on the Hare SRP-III. That is, the lie catcher will be more likely to judge the suspect as telling the truth when s/he scores higher than the interrogator, and vice versa: more likely to judge the suspect as lying when s/he scores lower than the interrogator.
