Does Testimonial Inconsistency Indicate Memory Inaccuracy and Deception? Beliefs, Empirical Research, and Theory

Fisher, Ronald P.; Vrij, Aldert; Leins, Drew A.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5547-9_7

Cited by 45 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, witnesses who have provided fewer inconsistent responses across interviews are no more accurate than witnesses who have provided more inconsistent responses (Brewer, Potter, Fisher, Bond, & Luszcz, 1999;Fisher & Cutler, 1995;Fisher, Vrij, & Leins, 2013;Gilbert & Fisher, 2006).…”

Section: Context Of Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Chan

Manley

Lang

2017

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitnesses are often repeatedly interviewed about the same crime, and they might be exposed to misleading information between these interviews. Taking a memory test before being exposed to misinformation can ironically increase the likelihood that an eyewitness would fall prey to the misinformation effect-a finding termed Retrieval-Enhanced Suggestibility (RES). In this paper, we outline the motivation behind the original research on RES, summarize the theoretical explanations that have been used to explain this finding, and provide a review of the extant empirical findings. We then report the results of two new experiments that examined whether participants, upon being informed that they had provided inconsistent responses during the prior recall tests, could overcome the RES effect during a final recognition test in which the correct event detail and the misinformation were offered as response options. The results showed that RES persisted in this recognition test, and the level of inconsistencies shown by participants during the prior recall tests predicted their final recognition performance, such that more inconsistent witnesses were also more error-prone during the final recognition test-but this relation was stronger for misinformation-induced inconsistencies than for spontaneously-produced inconsistencies.

show abstract

Section: Context Of Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Chan

Manley

Lang

2017

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, a number of features of Granhag and Strömwall’s experimental setup facilitated the liars’ use of the repeat strategy (see Fisher et al, 2013). If these favorable conditions are removed, then contradictions may arise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If these favorable conditions are removed, then contradictions may arise. Specifically, in the studies by Granhag and Strömwall the questions were about central aspects of the event and hence could be anticipated by liars (Fisher et al, 2013). Also, the participants knew they would be interviewed several times (Strömwall and Granhag, 2005), so they might have rehearsed their stories during the time between one interview and the next.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Interviewing to Detect Deception: Cues to Deception across Repeated Interviews

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous deception research on repeated interviews found that liars are not less consistent than truth tellers, presumably because liars use a “repeat strategy” to be consistent across interviews. The goal of this study was to design an interview procedure to overcome this strategy. Innocent participants (truth tellers) and guilty participants (liars) had to convince an interviewer that they had performed several innocent activities rather than committing a mock crime. The interview focused on the innocent activities (alibi), contained specific central and peripheral questions, and was repeated after 1 week without forewarning. Cognitive load was increased by asking participants to reply quickly. The liars’ answers in replying to both central and peripheral questions were significantly less accurate, less consistent, and more evasive than the truth tellers’ answers. Logistic regression analyses yielded classification rates ranging from around 70% (with consistency as the predictor variable), 85% (with evasive answers as the predictor variable), to over 90% (with an improved measure of consistency that incorporated evasive answers as the predictor variable, as well as with response accuracy as the predictor variable). These classification rates were higher than the interviewers’ accuracy rate (54%).

show abstract

“…If the subject is encouraged to repeat parts of the story, additional information is likely to be elicited. Some of these details may be inconsistent, which is itself an indicator of veracity-contrary to what is commonly believed (Fisher, Vrij, & Leins, 2013). Someone who is telling a lie, especially a prepared lie, is unlikely to correct himself because he believes this will both look suspicious and be hard to keep track of.…”

Section: Start the Conversation And Then Listenmentioning

confidence: 87%

Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

Brandon

Wells

Seale

2018

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes an ethical and effective science‐based model of interviewing. An initial planning phase assists the investigative team in separating facts from inferences, decreases the likelihood of errors based on cognitive biases, and prompts careful preparation of the environment. The interview begins with an explanation of why the subject is being questioned. The interviewer then metaphorically hands the interview over to the subject, making him the talker and the interviewer the listener. The interviewer engages in active listening, soliciting as much information from the subject as possible by deploying tactics that enhance memory based on science, including elements of the cognitive interview. Cues to deception are found in the details of the story, rather than in signs of anxiety or nonverbal behaviours, and by deploying Strategic Use of Evidence. This model has been shown to increase cooperation, decrease resistance, and provoke useful information in real‐world criminal interviews.

show abstract

Does Testimonial Inconsistency Indicate Memory Inaccuracy and Deception? Beliefs, Empirical Research, and Theory

Cited by 45 publications

References 34 publications

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Strategic Interviewing to Detect Deception: Cues to Deception across Repeated Interviews

Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About