Partners in Crime: How Liars in Collusion Betray Themselves<sup>1</sup>

Granhag, Pär Anders; Strömwall, Leif A.; Jonsson, Anna–Carin

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01928.x

Cited by 93 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The event was modified from Granhag et al (2003), and reported in detail in Vrij, Leal, Granhag, Mann, Fisher, Hillman, & Sperry (2009). Pairs of participants were recruited under the guise of a study about social interaction.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, when pairs of truth tellers and pairs of liars are given the opportunity to prepare themselves for an interview, they are likely to react differently. Pairs of liars will realise that it is crucial to plan and discuss together the facts of their fabricated story so they "get their stories straight" (Granhag, Strömwall, & Jonsson, 2003). If pairs of liars do not do this they run the risk of each providing statements that are inconsistent with one another, thereby raising doubts about their truthfulness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Getting into the Minds of Pairs of Liars and Truth Tellers: An Examination of Their Strategies

Vrij¹,

Mann²,

Leal³

et al. 2010

TOCRIJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We examined the strategies used by 20 pairs of liars and 20 pairs of truth tellers when they were given the opportunity to prepare themselves for an interview in which they would be questioned about their whereabouts during a given period of time. More lying than truth telling pairs prepared themselves for the interviews. The truth tellers and liars who did prepare themselves used different verbal strategies but the same nonverbal strategies. Regarding verbal strategies, truth tellers were predominantly concerned with telling everything they could remember. In contrast, liars thought of answers they could give to possible questions but also decided to be vague so that they would not contradict each other. Regarding nonverbal strategies, both truth tellers and liars tried to suppress nervous behaviours. These findings explain why truth tellers are typically more detailed than liars but also why liars are typically equally consistent as truth tellers, at least when answering questions they have anticipated. Implications for interview techniques to detect deceit are discussed.Keywords: liars' and truth tellers verbal ane nonverbal strategies, lie detection.In their attempts to detect lies it will benefit criminal investigators to obtain insight into how truth tellers and liars prepare themselves for their interviews . This insight could predict what truth tellers and liars say and how they behave during an interview, and criminal investigators could use this insight to develop effective theory-based lie detection protocols. Given the importance, it is surprising that truth tellers' and liars' strategies to appear credible in an interview have been understudied for a long time (DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton, & Cooper, 2003). However, DePaulo et al.'s (2003) plea for research into this area has resulted in several studies (Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Woods, & Michlik, 2006;Granhag & Strömwall, 2002;Strömwall, Granhag, & Landström, 2007;Strömwall, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2006).The present strategies study differed from the previous studies in two important ways. First, previous studies concentrated on the strategies developed by individual truth tellers and liars whereas we focused on pairs of truth tellers and pairs of liars. We believe that this reflects an important aspect of real life, because criminals often work in groups or networks rather than alone. Second, after being interviewed, we asked the truth tellers and liars whether there were awkward moments during the interview that could have jeopardised their credibility. In theory, truth tellers and liars face the same task during the interview: They both need to convince an interviewer that they are innocent Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, Wolf, Vrij, Roos af Hjelmsater, 2008). However, when pairs of truth tellers and pairs of liars are given the opportunity to prepare themselves for an interview, they are likely to react differently. Pairs of liars will realise that it is crucial to plan and discuss together the facts of their fabric...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting into the Minds of Pairs of Liars and Truth Tellers: An Examination of Their Strategies

Vrij¹,

Mann²,

Leal³

et al. 2010

TOCRIJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A process that has been termed 'superficial encoding' (Porter & Yuille, 1996). This theory has had some support, (Granhag & Strömwall, 1999, Granhag, Strömwall, & Jonsson, 2003 and has led to the view that truth tellers create their accounts through reconstruction, whereas liars attempt to accurately repeat a previously rehearsed script. According to these theories, it is these differences in processing and storage that are responsible for systematic and measureable differences in in truthful and fabricated memory accounts (Colwell, HiscockAnisman, Memon, Taylor, & Prewett, 2007).…”

Section: True and Fabricated Memories Pagementioning

confidence: 99%

True and intentionally fabricated memories

Justice

Morrison

2013

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the experiment reported here was to investigate the processes underlying the construction of truthful and deliberately fabricated memories.Properties of memories created to be intentionally false -fabricated memories -were compared to properties of memories believed to be true -true memories. Participants recalled and then wrote or spoke true memories and fabricated memories of everyday events. It was found that true memories were reliably more vivid than fabricated memories and were nearly always recalled from a first person perspective. In contrast, fabricated differed from true memories in that they were judged to be reliably older, were more frequently recalled from a third person perspective, and linguistic analysis revealed that they required more cognitive effort to generate. No notable differences were found across modality of reporting. Finally, it was found that, intentionally fabricated memories were created by recalling and then 'editing' true memories. Overall, these findings show that true and fabricated memories systematically differ, despite the fact that both are based on true memories. TRUE & FABRICATED MEMORIES Page 3One of the functions of memory is in imagining. Imagining, for example, how the future might be or how the past might have been otherwise. Indeed, memory and imagining are so interconnected it has been suggested that together they form a remembering-imagining system (Conway, 2009). Although much research has focused on the association between imagining the future and autobiographical memory (Addis, Wong, & Schacter, 2007;D'Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2004;Hassabis, Kumaran, Vann, & Maguire, 2007;Newby-Clark & Ross, 2003;Schacter & Addis, 2009;Schacter, Addis, & Buckner, 2008;Szpunar & McDermott, 2008;Tulving, 1985;Tulving, 2002), little research has investigated our ability to imagine an alternative past. Therefore, in the present study we directly compare intentionally fabricated autobiographical memories (IFAMs) with autobiographical memories (AMs) the rememberer believes to be true and which they experience as memories. An IFAM is an entirely or partially fabricated memory, consisting primarily, but not exclusively of false facts, as opposed to the expression of false opinions or beliefs (see Newman et al., 2003, for differences in false opinions). IFAMs may arise in forensic contexts, and become particularly pivotal in instances when memory is the only form of evidence available.The sorts of cases in which memories are the only evidence include, what in the UK are termed, cases of 'historic' sexual abuse (typically memories dating to childhood recalled by an adult complainant), accident assessments, war, torture, political asylum, and plagiarism. Moreover, reports of fabricated memories are a common feature of forensic interviews and interrogations (Porter & Yuille, 1996, Porter, Yuille andLehman, 1999) and a number of reasons and motivations for deliberately fabricating memories may exist including revenge, control and monetary gain (Yuille, Tymofievich, ...

show abstract

“…Previous research has shown that varying question format across interviews has helped truth-tellers recall more information in subsequent interviews (Fisher, Brewer, & Mitchell, 2009;Granhag, Strömwall, & Jonsson, 2003), but has hindered liars from repeating information due to the difficult nature of the task (Deeb, Vrij, Hope, Mann, Granhag, & Lancaster, 2017;Leins et al, 2012). Hence, we were interested in exploring whether varying the visuospatial tasks across interviews would have an impact on statements by liars who employ counter-interrogation strategies.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Deeb

Granhag

Vrij

et al. 2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard 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...

show abstract

Partners in Crime: How Liars in Collusion Betray Themselves¹

Cited by 93 publications

References 31 publications

Getting into the Minds of Pairs of Liars and Truth Tellers: An Examination of Their Strategies

Getting into the Minds of Pairs of Liars and Truth Tellers: An Examination of Their Strategies

True and intentionally fabricated memories

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Partners in Crime: How Liars in Collusion Betray Themselves1

Cited by 93 publications

References 31 publications

Getting into the Minds of Pairs of Liars and Truth Tellers: An Examination of Their Strategies

Getting into the Minds of Pairs of Liars and Truth Tellers: An Examination of Their Strategies

True and intentionally fabricated memories

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Partners in Crime: How Liars in Collusion Betray Themselves¹