Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 319–330 | Cite as

Observers’ Real-Time Sensitivity to Deception in Naturalistic Interviews

  • Drew A. Leins
  • Laura A. Zimmerman
  • Emily N. Polander
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Deception detection Veracity judgment Interrogation Investigative interviewing Cognitive load 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Bond GD (2008) Deception detection expertise. Law Hum Behav 32:339–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond CF Jr, DePaulo BM (2006) Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 10:214–234. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond CF Jr, DePaulo BM (2008) Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias. Psychol Bull 134:477–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer N, Potter RF, Fisher RP, Bond N, Lusczc MA (1999) Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol 13:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgoon JK, Blair JP, Strom RE (2008) Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue availability in detecting deception. Hum Commun Res 34(4):572–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caso L, Maricchiolo F, Bonaiuto M, Vrij A, Mann S (2006) The impact of deception and suspicion on different hand movements. J Nonverbal Behav 30(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129(1):74–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Doherty-Sneddon G, Phelps FG (2005) Gaze aversion: a response to cognitive or social difficulty? Mem Cogn 33:727–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ewens S, Vrij A, Jang M, Jo E (2014) Drop the small talk when establishing baseline behaviour in interviews. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 11:244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewens S, Vrij A, Mann S, Leal S (2015) Using the reverse order technique with non-native speakers or through an interpreter. Appl Cogn Psychol 30:242–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ewens S, Vrij A, Leal S, Mann S, Jo E, Fisher RP (2016) The effect of interpreters on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport. Leg Criminol Psychol 21:286–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feely TH, deTurck MA (1997) Case-relevant vs. case-irrelevant questioning in experimental lie detection. Communication Reports 10(1):35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feely TH, deTurck MA, Young MJ (1995) Baseline familiarity in lie detection. Communication Research Reports 12(2):160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Gany F, Kapelusznik L, Prakash K, Gonzalez J, Orta LY, Tseng CH, Changrani J (2007) The impact of medical interpretation method on time and errors. J Gen Intern Med 22(2):319–323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Girard JM (2014) CARMA: software for continuous affect rating and media annotation. Journal of Open Research Software 2(1):e5. doi: 10.5334/jors.ar Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (2000b) Effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail. Psychol Crime Law 6:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Jonsson A-C (2003) Partners in crime: how liars in collusion betray themselves. J Appl Soc Psychol 33:848–868. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01928.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Hartwig M, Bond CF Jr (2011) Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychol Bull 137(4):643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 30:603–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurst M, Oswald M (2012) Mechanisms underlying response bias in deception detection. Psychol Crime Law 18:759–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inbau FE, Reid JE, Buckley JP, Jayne BC (2011) Criminal interrogation and confessions, 5th edn. Jones & Bartlett, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Jundi S, Vrij A, Mann S, Hillman J, Hope L (2015) ‘I’m a photographer, not a terrorist’: the use of photography to detect deception. Psychol Crime Law 21(2):114–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kassin SM, Goldstein CJ, Savitsky K (2003) Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: on the dangers of presuming guilt. Law Hum Behav 27:187–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Leins D, Fisher RP, Vrij A, Leal S, Mann S (2011) Using sketch drawing to induce inconsistency in liars. Leg Criminol Psychol 16(2):253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leins D, Fisher RP, Vrij A (2012) Drawing on liars’ lack of cognitive flexibility: detecting deception through varying report modes. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(4):601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leins DA, Fisher RP, Ross SJ (2013) Exploring liars’ strategies for creating deceptive reports. Leg Criminol Psychol 18(1):141–151. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02041.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Meissner CA, Kassin SM (2002) “He’s guilty!”: investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law Hum Behav 26(5):469–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Meissner CA, Kassin SM (2004) ‘You’re guilty, so just confess!’ Cognitive and confirmational biases in the interrogation room. In: Lassiter GD (ed) Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp 85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Russano MB, Narchet FM, Kleinman SM (2014a) Analysts, interpreters, and intelligence interrogations: perceptions and insights. Appl Cogn Psychol 28:829–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russano MB, Narchet FM, Kleinman SM, Meissner CA (2014b) Structured interviews of experienced HUMINT interrogators. Appl Cogn Psychol 28:847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strömwall LA, Granhag PA (2003) How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychol Crime Law 9:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tekin S, Granhag PA, Strömwall L, Giolla EM, Vrij A, Hartwig M (2015) Interviewing strategically to elicit admissions from guilty suspects. Law Hum Behav 39(3):244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Valero Garcés C (2005) Doctor-patient consultations in dyadic and triadic exchanges. Interpreting 7:193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Vrij A, Edward K, Roberts KP, Bull R (2000) Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. J Nonverbal Behav 24(4):239–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vrij A, Fisher R, Mann S, Leal S (2008a) A cognitive load approach to lie detection. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 5(1–2):39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vrij A, Mann S, Fisher RP, Leal S, Milne R, Bull R (2008b) Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: the benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law Hum Behav 32:253–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 33:159–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Vrij A, Granhag PA, Porter S (2010) Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychol Sci Public Interest 11(3):89–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Vrij A, Granhag PA, Mann S, Leal S (2011) Outsmarting the liars: toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vrij A, Leal S, Mann S, Fisher RP (2012) Imposing cognitive load to elicit cues to deceit: inducing the reverse order technique naturally. Psychol Crime Law 18:579–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vrij A, Leal S, Mann S, Vernham Z, Brankaert F (2015) Translating theory into practice: evaluating a cognitive lie detection training workshop. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 4(2):110–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Drew A. Leins
    • 1
  • Laura A. Zimmerman
    • 1
  • Emily N. Polander
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Solutions Group, Applied Research Associates, Inc.AlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations