Abstract
Research shows that there are few objective cues to deception. However, it may be possible to create such cues by strategic interviewing techniques. Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) is one such technique. The basic premise of the SUE technique is that liars and truth tellers employ different counter-interrogation strategies, and that the evidence against the suspect can be used to exploit these differences in strategies. This study examined the effect of the timing of evidence disclosure (early vs. late vs. gradual) on verbal cues to deception. We predicted that late disclosure would be most effective in differentiating between liars and truth-tellers, and that cues to deception in the gradual disclosure condition would progressively disappear due to the suspects’ realization that evidence against them exists. That is, we expected that liars in the gradual presentation condition would become more consistent with the evidence over time. A sample of 86 undergraduate students went through a mock-terrorism paradigm (half innocent, half guilty), and were subsequently interviewed using one of three disclosure strategies: early, gradual, and late disclosure. We measured statement-evidence inconsistencies as cues to deception . Results supported our predictions in that cues to deception were most pronounced in the late disclosure condition. Contrary to our expectations, the results suggested that presenting the evidence gradually may put innocent suspects at a higher risk of misclassification as they seem to adopt a strategy that is more similar to guilty suspects.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For ethical reasons, participants were informed that they were not taking part in any illegal activity and that there was no real bomb threat of any sort. However, due to the fact that the method of deception detection that is tested in the present study is not anxiety based, it is unlikely that the effects would be moderated by the increase in stakes.
References
Bond CF Jr, DePaulo BM (2006) Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 10:214–234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
Clemens F, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Vrij A, Landström S, Roos af Hjelmsäter E, Hartwig M (2010) Skulking around the dinosaur: eliciting cues to children's deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Appl Cogn Psychol 24:925–940. doi:10.1002/acp.1597
Clemens F, Granhag PA, Strömwall L (2011) Eliciting cues to false intent: a new application of strategic interviewing. Law Hum Behav 35:512–522
Colwell K, Hiscock-Anisman C, Memon A, Woods D, Michlik PM (2006) Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth-tellers: how liars attempt to convince. Am J Forensic Psychol 24:1–9
Colwell K, Hiscock-Anisman C, Memon A, Taylor L, Prewett J (2007) Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): an integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 4:167–180. doi:10.1002/jip.73
Dando CJ, Bull R (2011) Maximizing opportunities to detect verbal deception: training police officers to interview tactically. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 8:189–202
DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129:74–118. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.129.1.74
Ekman P (2001) Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. W W Norton & Co., New York, NY
Granhag PA (2010) The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique: a scientific perspective. High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG, FBI), Washington, D.C., USA. HIG Research Symposium: Interrogation in the European Union.
Granhag PA, Hartwig M (2008) A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: on the psychology of instrumental mind reading. Psychol Crime Law 14:189–200
Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Willén R, Hartwig M (in press) Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: the first test of the evidence framing matrix. Leg Criminol Psychol. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02047.x
Hartwig M, Bond CF Jr (2011) Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychol Bull 137:643–659. doi:10.1037/a0023589
Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Vrij A (2005) Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law Hum Behav 29:469–484. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-5521-x
Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Kronkvist O (2006) Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works. Law Hum Behav 30:603–619. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9
Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (2007) Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during a police interrogation. Psychol Crime Law 13:213–227. doi:10.1080/10683160600750264
Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Doering N (2010) Impression and information management: on the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. Open Criminol J 3:10–16. doi:10.2174/1874917801003020010
Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Roos af Hjelmsäter E, Wolf A (2011) Detecting deception in suspects: verbal cues as a function of interview strategy. Psychol Crime Law 17:643–656. doi:10.1080/10683160903446982
Hines A, Colwell K, Hiscock-Anisman C, Garrett E, Ansarra R, Montavo L (2010) Impression management strategies of deceivers and honest reporters in an investigative interview. Eur J Psychol Appl Legal Context 2:73–90
Inbau FE, Reid JE, Buckley JP, Jayne BC (2001) Criminal interrogation and confessions. Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg
Kassin SM (2005) On the psychology of confessions: does innocence put innocent at risk? Am Psychol 60:215–228. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
Leo RA (1996) Inside the interrogation room. J Crim Law Criminol 86:266–303. doi:10.2307/1144028
Levine TR, Shaw A, Shulman HC (2010) Increasing deception detection accuracy with strategic questioning. Hum Commun Res 36:216–231. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01374.x
Soukara S, Bull R, Vrij A, Turner M, Cherryman J (2009) What really happens in police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions. Psychol Crime Law 15:493–506. doi:10.1080/10683160802201827
Strömwall LA, Granhag PA, Hartwig M (2004) Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In: Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (eds) The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 229–250. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490071.010
Strömwall LA, Hartwig M, Granhag PA (2006) To act truthfully: nonverbal behaviour and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychol Crime Law 12:207–219. doi:10.1080/10683160512331331328
Vrij A, Granhag PA (2012) Eliciting cues to deception and truth: what matters are the questions asked. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 1:110–117
Vrij A, Mann S, Fisher RP (2006) An empirical test of the behaviour analysis interview. Law Hum Behav 30:329–345. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9014-3
Vrij A, Mann S, Kristen S, Fisher RP (2007) Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law Hum Behav 31:499–518. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9066-4
Vrij A, Mann SA, Fisher RP, Leal S, Milne R, Bull R (2008) Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: the benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law Hum Behav 32:253–265. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y
Vrij A, Leal S, Granhag PA, Mann S, Fisher RP, Hillman J, Sperry K (2009) Outsmarting the liars: the benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law Hum Behav 33:159–166. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9143-y
Vrij A, Granhag PA, Porter S (2010) Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychol Sci Public Interest 11:89–121. doi:10.1177/1529100610390861
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sorochinski, M., Hartwig, M., Osborne, J. et al. Interviewing to Detect Deception: When to Disclose the Evidence?. J Police Crim Psych 29, 87–94 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-013-9121-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-013-9121-2