The Effects of Case Characteristics on Suspect Behaviour During Police Questioning

Moston, Stephen; Stephenson, Geoffrey M.; Williamson, Thomas M.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048178

Cited by 226 publications

(286 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

262

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An accusatorial interrogation technique was often used when there was strong evidence that linked the suspect to the crime. When the evidence was less strong, the interrogation tended to reflect an information-gathering ambition (Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson, 1992).…”

Section: European Studies Of Interrogationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence.

Hartwig

Granhag

Strömwall

et al. 2005

Law and Human Behavior

189

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several decades of research has shown that people are poor at detecting deception. This thesis, based on four empirical studies, aimed at exploring human deception detection accuracy in the context of interrogations. In three of the studies, there was a special focus on the presence of evidence in the interrogation, and how strategic use of this evidence affected the statements of the suspects as well as the accuracy of the lie-catchers. In previous research, the fact that there in real-life situations often exists evidence against a suspect has been neglected. It was expected that it would be beneficial for deception detection to withhold the evidence during the interrogation, and that this would lead to liars contradicting the incriminating information to a higher degree compared to truth tellers. Differences in statement-evidence consistency between liars and truth tellers could then serve as a cue leading to more accurate veracity judgments. In Study I, experienced police officers (N = 30) were set free to conduct interrogations with mock suspects in the manner of their own choice. They also watched a video-taped interrogation conducted by one of their colleagues. Both when interrogating and observing video, the police officers achieved deception detection accuracy levels (56.7%) similar to the level of chance. The aim of Study II was to examine the effects of disclosing the evidence at different stages of the interrogation. It was expected that disclosing the evidence late (vs. early) in the interrogation would provide a better basis for correct veracity judgments. The reason for this was that late disclosure of evidence would make liars and truth tellers differ in terms of statement-evidence consistency. Mock suspects (N = 58) were interrogated by experimenters. Lie-catchers (N = 116) who watched late disclosure interrogations (accuracy 61.7%) significantly outperformed those who watched early disclosure interrogations (accuracy 42.9%). In Study III, police trainees (N = 82) either were or were not trained in strategically using the evidence when interrogating lying or truth telling mock suspects (N = 82). Liars interrogated by trained interrogators were more inconsistent with the evidence compared to liars interrogated by untrained interrogators. Trained interrogators obtained a considerably higher accuracy rate (85.4%) than untrained interrogators (56.1%). In Study IV, the strategies reported by the suspects (N = 82) in Study III were examined. Guilty suspects, to a higher degree than innocent suspects, applied conscious strategies in order to appear truthful. Guilty suspects reported diverse strategies (such as to provide a consistent story or an alibi), while innocent suspects reported the strategy to tell the truth like it had happened, indicating a belief in the visibility of innocence (i.e., they thought that innocence shows). The results of the thesis show that when the evidence is not used strategically during an interrogation, deception detection accuracy is poor. However, when the evidence is us...

show abstract

Section: European Studies Of Interrogationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, the number of both pre-and post-PACE studies estimating the frequency of confessions is small (Moston et al, 1992;.…”

Section: European Studies Of Interrogationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence.

Hartwig

Granhag

Strömwall

et al. 2005

Law and Human Behavior

189

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings can be explained by the self-regulation theory that postulates that individuals evade a threat by using an avoidance or an escape strategy (Bauer & Baumeister, 2011). Liars may choose to exercise an avoidance strategy by withholding information and using their right to silence so that they do not incriminate themselves (Alison et al, 2014;Granhag, Clemens, & Strömwall, 2009;Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson, 1992), or they may use an escape strategy by responding in a manner that does not incriminate them by denying having committed the crime or by providing nonincriminating information only (Granhag & Hartwig, 2008). Informed liars used an escape strategy as they denied incriminating information and revealed as much information as possible about the alibi setting (DePaulo et al, 2003;Granhag & Hartwig, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…This finding, perhaps, should not be wholly surprising since the training investigators receive in England and Wales explicitly advocates this approach. Prior to the introduction of the PEACE framework, Moston, Stephenson, and Williamson (1992) found 'early' disclosure to be commonplace, and (more recently) Tans-Chang Lin and Chih-Hung Shih (2013) found that Taiwanese police officers' (most likely to be untrained in the PEACE model) believed that they undertook an early strategy. In the present study PEACE training also appears to influence reasoning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bull (2014) provides a more detailed explanation of each of these evidence disclosure mode (EDM) strategies. In brief 'early' refers to evidence being disclosed at the start of the interview, before questions have been put to the suspect (see Moston et al, 1992;Sellers & Kebbell, 2009;Leo, 1996). 'Gradual' evidence disclosure involves a phased presentation of information/evidence, provided in a 'drip-feed' effect throughout the interview (Dando & Bull, 2011;Granhag et al, 2012).…”

Section: Evidence Disclosure Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%