Improving Professional Observers’ Veracity Judgements by Tactical Interviewing

Abstract

Understanding whether a person of interest is being truthful during an investigative interview is a constant challenge and is of concern to numerous criminal justice professionals, most of whom are not involved in conducting the interview itself. Here, we investigated police observers’ veracity detection performance having viewed interviews with truthtellers and deceivers using either the tactical use of evidence (TUE), strategic use of evidence (SUE) or a control technique. Thirty serving police officers participated as post-interview observers and each viewed 12 interviews in a counterbalanced order. After each interview, the officer made a veracity judgement. Overall, untrained police observers were significantly more accurate (68%) when making veracity judgements post-TUE interviews, whereas for both SUE and control performance was around chance (51% and 48%, respectively). Veracity performance for liars and truthtellers revealed a similar pattern of results (67% liars; 70% truthtellers) in the TUE condition. These results lend further support to the psychological literature highlighting the importance of how and when to reveal evidence or any other relevant event information during an investigative interview for ‘outing’ deceivers as well as allowing truthtellers early opportunities to demonstrate their innocence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anolli L, Ciceri R (1997) The voice of deception; vocal strategies of naive and able liars. J Nonverbal Behav 21(4):259–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bull R (2014) When in interviews to disclose information to suspects and to challenge them? In: Bull R (ed) Investigative interviewing. New York, Springer

  3. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1979) Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(1):97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Colman AM (2003) Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction. Behav Brain Sci 26(2):139–153

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dando CJ, Bull R (2011) Maximising opportunities to detect verbal deception: training police officers to interview tactically. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 8(2):189–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dando CJ, Bull R, Ormerod TC, Sandham AL (2015) Helping to sort the liars from the truth-tellers: the gradual revelation of information during investigative interviews. Leg Criminol Psychol 20(1):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dando CJ, Ormerod TC (2017) Analyzing decision logs to understand decision making in serious crime investigations. Hum Factors 59(8):1188–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dando CJ, Ormerod TC (2019) Noncoercive human intelligence gathering. J Exp Psychol Gen. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000724

  9. DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129(1):74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodwin KA, Hannah PJ, Nicholl MC, Ferri JM (2017) The confident co-witness: the effects of misinformation on memory after collaborative discussion. Appl Cogn Psychol 31(2):225–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Granhag PA, Hartwig M (2008) A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: on the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychol Crime Law 14(3):189–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701645181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Granhag PA, Stromwall LA, Willen RM, Hartwig M (2013) Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: the first test of the evidence framing matrix. Leg Criminol Psychol 18:341–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Kronkvist O (2006) Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works. Law Hum Behav 30(5):603. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1195284781&Fmt=7&clientId=14829&RQT=309&VName=PQD–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Stromwall LA (2007) Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychol Crime Law 13(2):213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160600750264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Stromwall LA, Doering N (2010) Impression and information management: on the strategic self- regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal 3(1):10–16. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003020010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Vrij A (2005) Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law Hum Behav 29(4):469–484 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kang SH (2016) Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning: policy implications for instruction. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci 3(1):12–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leins DA, Fisher RP, Ross SJ (2013) Exploring liars’ strategies for creating deceptive reports. Leg Criminol Psychol 18(1):141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Levine TR (2014) Active deception detection. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci 1(1):122–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Levine TR, Park HS, McCormack SA (1999) Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: documenting the ‘veracity effect’. Commun Monogr 66:125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Loftus EF, Greenspan RL (2017) If I’m certain, is it true? Accuracy and confidence in eyewitness memory. Psychol Sci Public Interest 18(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100617699241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Luke TJ, Hartwig M, Brimbal L, Chan G, Jordan S, Joseph E, Osborne J, Granhag PA (2013) Interviewing to elicit cues to deception: improving strategic use of evidence with general-to-specific framing of evidence. J Police Crim Psychol 28(1):54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Luke TJ, Hartwig M, Joseph E, Brimbal L, Chan G, Dawson E, Jordan S, Donovan P, Granhag PA (2016a) Training in the strategic use of evidence technique: improving deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers. J Police Crim Psychol 31(4):270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Luke TJ, Hartwig M, Shamash B, Granhag PA (2016b) Countermeasures against the strategic use of evidence technique; effects on suspects strategies. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling 13(2):131–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Martschuk N, Sporer SL, Sauerland M (2019) Confidence of older eyewitnesses: is it diagnostic of identification accuracy? Open Psychology 1(1):132–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Masip J, Alonso H, Herrero C, Garrido E (2016) Experienced and novice officers’ generalized communication suspicion and veracity judgments. Law Hum Behav 40(2):169–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Masip J, Herrero C (2017) Examining police officers’ response bias in judging veracity. Psicothema 29(4):490–495

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nahari, G. (2018). The applicability of the verifiability approach to the real world. In Detecting concealed information and deception (pp. 329-349). Elsevier

  29. Ormerod TC, Dando CJ (2014) Finding a needle in a haystack: towards a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening. J Exp Psychol Gen 144(1)

  30. Parkhouse T, Ormerod TC (2018) Unanticipated questions can yield unanticipated outcomes in investigative interviews. Plos One, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208751

  31. Sandham AL, Ormerod TC, Dando CJ, Bull R, Jackson M, Goulding J (2011) Scent trails: countering terrorism through informed surveillance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 14th HCI International, July 2011. Orlando, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sandham AL, Ormerod TC, Dando CJ, Menacere T (2015). On the trail of the terrorist: a research environment to simulate criminal investigations. In A. L. Stedman, G. (Ed.), Hostile intent and counter-terrorism - human factors theory and application (pp. 129–146). Ashgate Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315587080-11

  33. Sauer JD, Palmer MA, Brewer N (2019) Pitfalls in using eyewitness confidence to diagnose the accuracy of an individual identification decision. Psychol Public Policy Law 25(3):147–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shubik M (2002) The uses of teaching games in game theory classes and some experimental games. Simul Gaming 33(2):139–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sorochinski M, Hartwig M, Osborne J, Wilkins E, Marsh J, Kazakov D, Granhag PA (2014) Interviewing to detect deception: when to disclose the evidence? J Police Crim Psychol 29(2):87–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sporer SL (2016) Deception and cognitive load: expanding our horizons with a working memory model. Front Psychol 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00420

  37. Verigin BL, Meijer EH, Bogaard G, Vrij A (2019) Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self reported good liars. PLoS One 14(12):e0225566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225566

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Vrij A (2019) Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Appl Cogn Psychol 33(2):160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Walsh D, Dando CJ, Ormerod TC (2018) Triage decision-making by welfare fraud investigators. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition 7(1):82–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Grant Nos. EP/F006500/1 and EP/F008600/1).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra L. Sandham.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sandham, A.L., Dando, C.J., Bull, R. et al. Improving Professional Observers’ Veracity Judgements by Tactical Interviewing. J Police Crim Psych (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09391-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Police observers
  • Tactical interviewing
  • Detecting deception