Strategic Use of Evidence During Investigative Interviews

Hartwig, Maria; Granhag, Pär Anders; Luke, Timothy J.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-394433-7.00001-4

Cited by 137 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A technique to similar unanticipated questions was tested by Hartwig and colleagues [5]. In the strategic-use-of-evidence (SUE) technique, interviewers disclose to suspects incriminating evidence later rather than early in the interview.…”

Section: Cognitive Approaches To Detect Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: searching for cognitive mechanisms

Blandón-Gitlin

Fenn

Masip

et al. 2014

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A current focus in deception research is on developing cognitive-load approaches (CLAs) to detect deception. The aim is to improve lie detection with evidence-based and ecologically valid procedures. Although these approaches show great potential, research on cognitive processes or mechanisms explaining how they operate is lacking. Potential mechanisms underlying the most popular techniques advocated for field application are highlighted. Cognitive scientists are encouraged to conduct basic research that qualifies the ‘cognitive’ in these new approaches.

show abstract

Section: Cognitive Approaches To Detect Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: searching for cognitive mechanisms

Blandón-Gitlin

Fenn

Masip

et al. 2014

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet in a recent metaanalysis of 144 samples containing 9,380 speakers, providing a total of 26,866 messages, and spanning more than forty years, Hartwig and Bond (2014) found that the detectability of deception did not differ as a function of whether the speaker was a college student or nonstudent; whether the motivation to evade detection was high or low; or whether the truths and lies were accompanied by high or low levels of emotion. Indeed, recent research has shown that the ability to discriminate between truth tellers and liars can be improved only when certain theoretically based interview protocols are used (Granhag & Hartwig, 2015;Hartwig, Granhag, & Luke, 2014;Vrij, 2015) and when training focuses on the most diagnostic cues (Hauch, Sporer, Michael, & Meissner, in press). …”

Section: Problems In Expert Deception Detection and The Risk Of Falsementioning

confidence: 99%

Problems in expert deception detection and the risk of false confessions: no proof to the contrary in Levine et al. (2014)

Vrij¹,

Meissner

Kassin

2015

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lie detection research has shown that observers who rely on nonverbal cues or on verbal cues correctly classify on average 54% of truth tellers and liars. In addition, over the years, countless numbers of innocent people have made false confessions and, in analysing the problem, researchers have implicated both a suspect's vulnerability and the persuasive influence of certain police interrogation tactics. Levine et al. (2014) aim to contribute to these vast bodies of literature by reporting two studies purportedly showing that expert interviewers Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:58 29 May 2015

show abstract

“…It may be useful to differentiate between statement-evidence, between-person, and within-person inconsistencies. The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique (see, e.g., Granhag et al, 2007; Hartwig et al, 2014) aims at eliciting inconsistencies between the guilty suspects’ statements and the evidence available to the police ( Statement-evidence inconsistencies ). The unanticipated questions approach was designed by Vrij et al (2009) to detect inconsistencies between pairs of liars interviewed separately and asked questions they could hardly have anticipated—so they were not able to agree on a common answer before the interview.…”

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

Strategic Use of Evidence During Investigative Interviews

Cited by 137 publications

References 47 publications

Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: searching for cognitive mechanisms

Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: searching for cognitive mechanisms

Problems in expert deception detection and the risk of false confessions: no proof to the contrary in Levine et al. (2014)

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About