Observers’ Real-Time Sensitivity to Deception in Naturalistic Interviews
This study tested the ability of experienced interviewers and novice observers to detect deception while watching mock interviews featuring experimental or control questioning methods and different detainee languages. The protocol featured a complex, realistic critical event and naturalistic interviews in which mock detainees could report unconstrained. Experimenters recorded these interviews and presented them to observers who judged veracity in real time. In general, experienced interviewers were no more sensitive to deception than were novices and both groups set conservative response criteria. Observers were more sensitive to deception when viewing control versus experimental questioning methods. Observers were more sensitive to deception when viewing Arabic speakers interviewed through an interpreter. Results imply that not all trained interviewers exhibit a lie bias; additional research should examine how best to transition lab-tested interview methods into the field, and language and interpreter factors may impact the ability to assess veracity in multiple ways.
KeywordsDeception detection Veracity judgment Interrogation Investigative interviewing Cognitive load
This research was funded by the Technical Support Working Group of the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office, Contract N41756-13-C-3079. The ideas presented in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the US Government.
- Aamodt MG, Custer H (2006) Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner 15(1):6–11Google Scholar
- Berk-Seligson S (2011) Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: a critical interactional sociolinguistic perspective. Int J Sociol Lang 207:29–58Google Scholar
- Fisher RP, Brewer N, Mitchell G (2009) The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony: legal versus cognitive explanations. In: Williamson T, Bull R, Valentine T (eds) Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: current developments and future directions, pp 121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fisher RP, Vrij A, Leins DA (2013) Does testimonial inconsistency indicate memory inaccuracy and deception? Beliefs, empirical research, and theory. In: Cooper BS, Griesel D, Ternes M (eds) Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment. Springer, New York, pp 173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (2000a) Deception detection: examining the consistency heuristic. In: Breur CM, Kommer MM, Nijboer JF, Reijntjes JM (eds) New trends in criminal investigation and evidence, vol 2. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 309–321Google Scholar
- Greuel L (1992) Police officers’ beliefs about cues associated with deception in rape cases. In: Losel R, Bender D, Bliesener T (eds) Psychology and law—international perspectives. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 234–239Google Scholar
- Inbau FE, Reid JE, Buckley JP, Jayne BC (2011) Criminal interrogation and confessions, 5th edn. Jones & Bartlett, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
- Marcon JL, Zimmerman LA, Wiggins S, Papautsky LL (2012) Field training and testing of interview and elicitation methods: training development and delivery (final report prepared under Contract W91CRB-09-C-0082 for US ARMY REDCOM Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD). Cognitive Solutions Division of Applied Research Associates, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
- Pruss N (2008) The effects of using a scripted or unscripted interview in forensic interviews with interpreters. (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TexasGoogle Scholar
- Ray D, Meissner CA, Russano MB (2015) Panel discussion: a field test of science-based methods of interrogation. Paper presented at the meeting of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- United States Department of the Army (2006) Field manual 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Headquarters, U.S. Department of the Army: Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- Vrij A (2015) A cognitive approach to lie detection. In: Granhag PA, Vrij A, Verschuere B (eds) Detecting deception: current challenges and cognitive approaches. Wiley, Chichester, pp 205–228Google Scholar