Counter-Interrogation Strategies among Small Cells of Suspects

Journal Invest Psychology

Rangmar

Strömwall

2014

Self Cite

Investigators often have to deal with small groups of suspects, and this is true both for criminal cases and for suspected terrorist cases. There is, however, very little research examining the effectiveness of different interview techniques when facing cells of suspects. In order to remedy this shortcoming, we examined the extent to which three interviewing techniques elicited cues to deception from small groups of suspects. In one technique, the evidence was disclosed early in the interview (early evidence); in another, the evidence was disclosed late using the Strategic use of evidence technique (SUE-basic); and in the third technique, the evidence was disclosed late and with an increased strength and precision (SUE-incremental). We used a mock-theft scenario with 126 participants randomly allocated to one of six conditions: guilty or innocent suspects interrogated with one of the three disclosure tactics. The SUE-incremental proved to be the most effective technique, resulting in significant differences between guilty and innocent suspects for all three cues examined: statementevidence inconsistency, within-statement inconsistency, and within-group inconsistency. Based on the findings, we argue that the SUE technique is effective also for eliciting cues to deception when used for small groups of suspects.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…The answers were provided through ratings on 7‐point scales. Further questions regarded the strategies used; these data are published in a separate paper (Granhag, Mac Giolla, Strömwall, & Rangmar, ). Additionally, there were demographic questions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small Cells of Suspects: Eliciting Cues to Deception by Strategic Interviewing

Journal Invest Psychology

Rangmar

Strömwall

2014

Self Cite

“…Unexpectedly we also found that liars' (vs. truth tellers) gave less detailed answers to the questions on their intentions. This might be explained by recent study showing that a common strategy among small cells of guilty suspects in preparing for an upcoming interview is to be restrictive with respect to the information that they would tell during the interview (Granhag et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The counter-interrogation strategy, most relevant for the current study, is that liars will prepare ready-made answers to anticipated questions and that their aim is to make sure to convince the interviewer that the stated goal is necessary to attain. Importantly, these assumptions are not just derived from past research (e.g., Clemens et al, 2013;Granhag et al, 2013), but are also supported by so-called resistance manuals (e.g., The Manchester manual) and other texts written by terrorists for terrorists (e.g., the manifest written by Anders Behring Breivik). In essence, the outcome of the current study fits neatly with how terrorists are advised to behave when being questioned.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminating between true and false intent among small cells of suspects

Sooniste

Strömwall

et al. 2014

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

Purpose Despite high potential value for real‐life situations, detecting true and false intentions by groups of suspects have not been previously investigated. Method The experimental study had a set‐up in which participants (N = 232), half in dyads and half in quartets, planned for either a mock crime or a non‐criminal event. In structured individual interviews, all participants were asked one set of questions targeting their intentions (anticipated questions) and one set of questions targeting the planning phase of the intentions (unanticipated questions). We scored the level of detail and consistency in participants' interview responses. Results As predicted, questions on the planning phase were perceived as unanticipated and difficult to answer by both liars and truth tellers. Truth tellers' answers to the question on intent were perceived as more detailed compared to the liars. Cells of truth tellers and liars achieved an equally high within‐group consistency for their answers to the questions on the stated intentions, whereas cells of truth tellers achieved a higher within‐group consistency for the answers to the questions on the planning phase. Finally, truth tellers' descriptions of their intentions contained more information related to how to attain the stated goal, whereas liars gave more information related to why it was necessary to attain the stated goal. Conclusions Asking anticipated and unanticipated questions can be a successful way of eliciting cues to true and false intentions among small cells of suspects.

“…However, liars also had to withhold information about the crime and to lie about the time they were at the alibi setting (withholding incriminating information is also considered lying; for an overview on types of lies, see Vrij, 2008). Hence, even though liars visited the alibi setting and could respond honestly to questions about it, the counter-interrogation strategies they would employ from preparing for the interview to withholding information about their criminal activities to maintaining consistency would not be used by truth-tellers (Granhag, Mac Giolla, Strömwall, & Rangmar, 2013;. This is in line with the self-regulation theory as liars who employ counter-interrogation strategies tend to be more deliberate than truthtellers when preparing and reporting about their alibi (Granhag et al, 2015;Hartwig et al, 2010).…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Visuospatial counter‐interrogation strategies by liars familiar with the alibi setting

Deeb

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Vrij

et al. 2018

Self Cite

SummaryThis study examines counter-interrogation strategies employed by liars giving false alibis. Participants (N = 144) visited a restaurant to buy a sandwich (truth-tellers) or to use it as a false alibi (liars). Half of the liars were informed they might be asked for a drawing of the alibi setting if interviewed (informed liars). Participants spent either 10 min (high familiarity condition) or 30 s (low familiarity condition) in the restaurant. All participants were asked to provide two visuospatial statements, which were assessed for salient details, nonsalient details, between-statement consistency, and statement-alibi setting consistency. Informed liars provided significantly more salient and nonsalient details than uninformed liars and truth-tellers, particularly in the high familiarity condition. No differences emerged for statement consistency types. The results suggest that liars are more concerned than truth-tellers about making a positive impression on the interviewer, and they fail to accurately reflect on truth-tellers' visuospatial statements. | INTRODUCTIONConsider a man who travels by car from the place where he lives to a distant city that he has never visited before. The man books a room in a hotel for one night. On that evening, the man targets a woman walking on the streets, abducts her in his car, and strangles her in a nearby scrapyard. The murderer then goes to a nearby pub for two hours and returns back to the hotel afterwards. On the next day, he goes to his workplace, acting as if nothing has happened. Consider another incident in which a woman murders someone in her neighbourhood and heads immediately afterwards to a festival that is hosted for the first time in the city. The woman stays there for half an hour before going home. Now, imagine that these two murderers were suspected by the police and questioned about the relevant crime. The suspects say they were at the pub/festival when the crime occurred, giving a false alibi.Investigators may want to establish if the suspects were in the claimed alibi location at the time the crime occurred. This can be determined if detailed questions about the alibi setting are asked. For the first case, investigators may come to know that the murderer booked a room for one night in a hotel situated near the crime location, so if he was in the pub, it would probably have been on the same night. Detailed questions about the suspect's stay at the pub may clarify whether he was there and the time he might have been there. For the second case, the suspect may also be asked detailed questions about the festival, which has never happened previously in the city. Hence, asking the suspect about the setting, decoration, bands' appearances, and order, among others, would assist officers in understanding whether the suspect was there or not. Now, imagine that the same murderers, before committing the crime, explored interview techniques that investigators employ. Knowing the type of questions that officers ask during interviews will help the murderers prepar...