Interviewing to Elicit Cues to Deception: Improving Strategic Use of Evidence with General-To-Specific Framing of Evidence

Luke, Timothy J.; Hartwig, Maria; Brimbal, Laure; Chan, Ginny; Jordan, Sarah; Joseph, E. C. S.; Osborne, Jeffery R; Granhag, Pär Anders

doi:10.1007/s11896-012-9113-7

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The construct of DRE applies to techniques other than those traditionally used in the ACID system (Colwell et al, ). For example, Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE; Luke et al, ) is a careful interviewing technique whereby evidence is told to a respondent after she or he has already been through much of the interview and has therefore committed to a version of the events. This additional evidence causes deceptive respondents to become more guarded and should reduce the amount of new information she or he is able to provide (SUE also increases or highlights statement–evidence inconsistencies).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

Rosa

Hiscock‐Anisman

Blythe

et al. 2018

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the Stepwise Interview, Cognitive Interview, and Reality Interview in detecting deception with inmates. The dependent measures were the amount of unique details provided during the free narrative and mnemonics and the number of words provided during the free narrative and mnemonics of each interview. The Stepwise Interview generated 58.3% accuracy, the Cognitive Interview generated 70.0% accuracy, and the Reality Interview generated 93.3% accuracy. The different tasks of these interviews increased the differences between honest and deceptive statements and therefore, increased the accuracy in detection of deception. Differential recall enhancement is used to explain the findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

Rosa

Hiscock‐Anisman

Blythe

et al. 2018

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Granhag et al, 2013); to improve the predictive value of within‐group inconsistencies a cell of suspects can be separated and interviewed individually in consecutive fashion (Granhag et al, 2015). However, for the purpose of examining the basic timing of evidence disclosure, while also considering the scarcity of evidence disclosure studies examining within‐statement inconsistencies (Granhag et al, 2013, Granhag et al, 2015; Luke et al, 2013) and within‐group inconsistencies (Granhag et al, 2015; Granhag, Mac Giolla, et al, 2013), the present review will focus exclusively on statement‐evidence inconsistencies as a cue to deception.…”

Section: Measures Of Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analytic review of the timing for disclosing evidence when interviewing suspects

Oleszkiewicz

Watson

2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta‐analytic review examines the most fundamental question for disclosing evidence during suspect interviews: What are the effective options for when to disclose the available evidence? We provide an update to Hartwig and colleagues (2014) meta‐analysis of the efficacy of the late and early disclosure methods on eliciting statement‐evidence inconsistencies from guilty and innocent suspects. We also extend these analyses to include studies comparing gradual disclosure to early and late disclosure when interviewing guilty suspects. Finally, we test whether a gradual disclosure leads to greater provision of novel investigative information when interviewing guilty suspects. Overall, we find that guilty suspects provide more statement‐evidence inconsistencies than innocent suspects, and that both a late and gradual disclosure result in more statement‐evidence inconsistencies than the early disclosure when interviewing guilty suspects. However, there are indications of small study effects that warrant considerable caution when interpreting the size of some of the identified effects.

show abstract

“…Since its inception, the SUE approach has been tested in a variety of contexts, including mock crime scenarios (e.g., Jordan, Hartwig, Wallace, Dawson, & Xhihani, ), simulated acts of terrorism (Sorochinski et al, ), and children's transgressions (Clemens et al, ). Recently, researchers have given attention to refining SUE techniques by testing the effects of various forms of specific tactics relating to questioning about and disclosure of case information (Granhag, Strömwall, Willén, & Hartwig, ; Luke et al, ). Further refinements of the SUE technique depend, however, on our theoretical understanding of the psychology of counter‐interrogation strategies (Granhag & Hartwig, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Awareness of Possible Evidence Induces Forthcoming Counter‐Interrogation Strategies

Luke

Dawson

Hartwig

et al. 2014

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose that suspects' counter-interrogation strategies vary as a function of their perception of the interrogator's knowledge about the events in question. The present study investigates the verbal behavior of guilty and innocent suspects when they are aware that there may be incriminating evidence against them. Participants (N = 143) took part in either a simulated act of terrorism or a benign task. They were then interviewed about their activities. Participants were randomly assigned to receive no additional information or to be informed that an investigative team may have collected evidence from surveillance cameras. Results suggest that when alerted to possible evidence against them, guilty suspects adopt either extremely withholding or extremely forthcoming verbal strategies. Theoretical implications of these results are discussed.

show abstract

Interviewing to Elicit Cues to Deception: Improving Strategic Use of Evidence with General-To-Specific Framing of Evidence

Cited by 18 publications

References 23 publications

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

A meta‐analytic review of the timing for disclosing evidence when interviewing suspects

How Awareness of Possible Evidence Induces Forthcoming Counter‐Interrogation Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About