Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception: An Example of the New Paradigm of Differential Recall Enhancement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Applied Issues in Investigative Interviewing, Eyewitness Memory, and Credibility Assessment

Abstract

The present chapter details the historical and conceptual evolution of a new paradigm in statement analysis that has developed over the past 20 years. There has been an increasing awareness of the importance of interviewing designed to facilitate the detection of deception as a necessary component of statement analysis (Colwell, Hiscock, & Memon, 2002; Hartwig & Bond, 2011; Hernández-Fernaud & Alonso-Quecuty, 1997; Koehnken, Schimossek, Ascherman, & Hofer, 1995; Vrij, Fisher, Mann, & Leal, 2006). Subsequently, the work of multiple researchers has created a zeitgeist that has nurtured and informed the development of this new paradigm. This chapter begins by providing a quick overview of the various lines of research that comprise this paradigm. Attention is then given to credibility assessment and statement content criteria that discriminate honest from deceptive responding. Then, the focus is on strategies of impression management and the subjective experience of respondents during an investigative interview. This sets the stage for a discussion of investigative interviewing structure and techniques that facilitate the detection of deception through the process of differential recall enhancement (DRE: Colwell et al., 2012). Finally, this chapter considers in detail an approach to interviewing and assessment that is representative of the new paradigm.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the symptom-validity approach to malingering, respondents who are motivated often perform worse-than-chance on two-alternative, forced-choice tests.

  2. 2.

    The Reality Interview was called the Inferential Interview in its original article (Colwell et al., 2002). However, many readers thought that inferential meant untrained, in that the group inferred their own style of interviewing. This was not correct, and the name was changed to avoid later confusion.

  3. 3.

    This chapter is concerned with verbal behavior, and this statement regarding difficulties in obtaining baselines during recall of innocuous events only applies to verbal behavior, and not to nonverbal behavior.

  4. 4.

    The authors suggest using an expanded version of coherence with children. For children, whether they disclose sensitive information should be scored as a “yes or no.” In addition, the number of serious contradictions should be counted.

References

  • Akehurst, L., Koehnken, G., & Hofer, E. (1995). Content credibility of accounts derived from live and video presentations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansarra, R., Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Hines, A., Fleck, R., Kondor, S., & Cole, L. (2011). Augmenting ACID with affective details to assess credibility. European Journal of Psychology Applied to the Legal Context, 3(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blandon-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Lindsay, S., & Hagen, L. (2009). Criteria-based content analysis of true and suggested accounts of events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(7), 901–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blandon-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Rogers, M., & Brodie, L. (2005). Detecting deception in children: An experimental study of the effect of event familiarity on CBCA ratings. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 187–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boychuk, T. D. (1991). Criteria-based content analysis of children’s statements about sexual abuse: A field-based validation study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University: Tempe, Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, J. P. (2006). The Reid Technique of interviewing and interrogation. In T. Williamson (Ed.), Investigative interviewing: Rights, research, regulation (pp. 190–206). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K. (1997). Interviewing techniques and the psycholinguistic assessment of statement credibility. Unpublished master’s thesis. Sam Houston State University: Huntsville, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, L. H., & Colwell, K. (2011). Assessing feigned cognitive impairment in defendants hospitalized for competency restoration: Further validation of the TOMI. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 11, 293–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, L. H., Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Hartwig, M., Cole, L., Werdin, K., & Youschak, K. (2012). Teaching professionals to detect deception: The efficacy of a brief training workshop. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12, 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., Hiscock, C. K., & Memon, A. (2002). Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C. K., Corbett, L., Bonilla, Y., Memon, A., & Hauselt, W. J. (2011). Change in suspect’s memory as a result of deception. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 29(4), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C.K, Hazlett, G., & Morgan, C.A. (2011). Credibility assessment of suspects speaking Arabic through English interpreters. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychology and Law Society, Miami, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Colwell, L. H., Taylor, L., & Woods, D. (2009). Training in Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) to improve credibility assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 9, 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Rachel, A., & Colwell, L. (2007). Vividness and spontaneity of statement detail characteristics as predictors of witness credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 25, 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C. K., Memon, A., Taylor, L., & Prewett, J. (2008). Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): An integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Woods, D., & Michlik, P. (2006). Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth-tellers: How liars attempt to convince. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 24(2), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, L. H., Miller, H. A., Miller, R. S., & Lyons, P. M. (2006). US police officers’ knowledge regarding behaviours indicative of deception: Implications for eradicating erroneous beliefs through training. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12(5), 489–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, K., & Sjerven, E. R. (2005). The ‘Coin-in-Hand’ strategy for forensic assessment of malingering. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23, 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando, C. J., & Bull, R. (2011). Maximising opportunities to detect verbal deception: Training police to interview tactically. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8(2), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esplin, P.W., Boychuk, T.D., & Raskin, D.C. (1988). A field validity study of criteria-based content analysis of children’s statements in sexual abuse cases. Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Credibility Assessment, Maratea, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., Geiselman, E., & Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection of the actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 722–727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gavigan, B.J., Fede, J., Richards, E., Hiscock-Anisman, C.K., Pankratz, L., & Colwell, K. (2012). A forced-choice test to detect witness deception. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychology and Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 643–659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., & Doering, N. (2009). Strategies of the deception game: A social cognitive theory of the psychology of innocence and guilt. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Antonio, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30(5), 603–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Fernaud, E., & Alonso-Quecuty, M. (1997). The cognitive interview and lie detection: A new magnifying glass for Sherlock Holmes? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, A., Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Garrett, E., Ansarra, R., & Montalvo, L. (2010). Impression management strategies of deceivers and honest reporters in an investigative interview. European Journal of Psychology Applied to the Legal Context, 2(1), 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock, M., & Hiscock, C. K. (1989). Refining the forced-choice method for the detection of malingering. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(6), 967–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock-Anisman, C. K., Colwell, K., Danna, M., Rodriguez, N., Sorcinelli, A., & French, M. N. (2012). Using ACID to help police detect deception. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychology and Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock-Anisman, C.K., Morrissey, D., Willet, S., Evans, M., Belarde, D., & Colwell, K. (2012). Comparing the Reality Interview and the Cognitive Interview: Two-alternative, forced-choice questions and differential recall enhancement. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, E., Akehurst, L., & Metzger, G. (1996). Reality monitoring: A chance for further development of CBCA? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Psychology and Law, Sienna, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C., Hiscock-Anisman, C.K., Colwell, K., Florence, S., Sorcinelli, A. & French, M.N. (2012). Strategies of impression management and deception among Chinese and English speakers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychology and Law Society. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2004). Criminal interrogations and confessions (4th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim, A., Schneider, M., Lotze, M., Veit, R., Sauseng, P., Braun, C., & Birbaumer, N. (2010). The truth about lying: Inhibition of the anterior prefrontal cortex improves deceptive behavior. Cerebral Cortex, 20(1), 205–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koehnken, G., Schimossek, E., Aschermann, E., & Hofer, E. (1995). The cognitive interview and the assessment of the credibility of adults’ statements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kradas, M., Henry, C., Williams, S., Talwar, V., Marsland, K.W., & Colwell, K. (2012). Reliability and validity of Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) with audio and written statements. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Hershkowitz, I. (1997). Criteria-based content analysis: A field validation study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, K., & Brigham, J. C. (1992). The effect of training in criteria-based content analysis on the ability to detect deception in adults. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 663–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11(1), 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Memon, A., Fraser, J., Colwell, K., Odino, G., & Mastroberadino, S. (2009). Distinguishing truthful from invented accounts using Reality Monitoring criteria. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 16(4), 340–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memon, A., Omerod, T.C., & Dando, C.J. (2012). Truth or lies: Reality monitoring and deception detection. Manuscript under review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Memon, A., Zaragoza, M., Clifford, B. R., & Kidd, L. (2010). Inoculation or antidote? The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events. Law and Human Behavior, 34(2), 105–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montalvo, L., Hallinan, C., Hiscock-Anisman, C.K., Morrissey, D., Bonilla, Y., Colwell, K., & Kradas, M. (in press). Using ACID to improve credibility assessments with written and audio statements. American Journal of Forensic Psychology .

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., & Colwell, K. (2011). Efficacy of forensic statement analysis in distinguishing truthful from deceptive eyewitness accounts of highly stressful events. Forensic Sciences, 56(5), 1227–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1995). Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 1(4), 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2003). Evaluation of malingering and deception. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 109–129). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruby, C. L., & Brigham, J. C. (1998). Can criteria-based content analysis distinguish between true and false statements of African American speakers? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2001). Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New York, NY: Signet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steller, M., Wellershaus, P., & Wolf, T. (1988). Empirical validation of criteria-based content analysis. Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Credibility Assessment, Maratea, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suckle-Nelson, J. A., Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Florence, S., Youschak, K. E., & Duarte, A. (2010). Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): Replication and gender differences. Open Criminology, 3, 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Undeutsch, U. (1954). Die Entwicklung der gerichtspsychologischen Gutachtertätigkeit. Oxford, England: Hogrefe, Verlag Fuer Psychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallano, J. P., & Compo, N. S. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness: Rapport building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock-crime interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 960–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verkampt, F., & Ginet, M. (2010). Variations of the cognitive interview: Which one is the most effective in enhancing children’s testimonies? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1279–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 11(1), 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2002). Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 261–283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 141–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P., Mann, S., Fisher, R.P., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior, 33(2), 159–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Werdin, K., Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C.K., Hartwig, M., Bessenoff, G., & Fede, J. (2012). ACID and computer-mediated deception: The use of Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception to assess credibility via instant messaging. Manuscript under review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S.M., Talwar, V., Rodriguez, N., Fede, J., Colwell, K., & Hiscock-Anisman, C.K. (2012). The mistakes of child lie tellers: Using the assessment criteria indicative of deception (ACID) system with children. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychology and Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkel, F. W., & Vrij, A. (1995). Verklaringen van kinderen in interviews: Een experimental onderzoek naar de diagnostische waarde van Criteria Based Content Analysis. Tijdschrift voor Ontwikkelingspsychologie, 22, 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 95–115). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaparniuk, J., Yuille, J., & Taylor, S. (1995). Assessing the credibility of true and false statements. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 18(3), 343–352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Lori Colwell, Ph.D., for her comments on previous versions of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Southern Connecticut State University, 501 Crescent St., New Haven, CT, 06515, USA

    Kevin Colwell & Jacquelyn Fede

  2. The National University, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman

Authors
  1. Kevin Colwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacquelyn Fede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Colwell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Forensic Alliance, Main Street, Suite #503 2818, Vancouver, V5T 0C1, British Columbia, Canada

    Barry S. Cooper

  2. Gerichts- und Rechtspsychologie, Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche, Rablstraße 45, München, 81669, Germany

    Dorothee Griesel

  3. , Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, West Mall 2329, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, British Columbia, Canada

    Marguerite Ternes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Fede, J. (2013). Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception: An Example of the New Paradigm of Differential Recall Enhancement. In: Cooper, B., Griesel, D., Ternes, M. (eds) Applied Issues in Investigative Interviewing, Eyewitness Memory, and Credibility Assessment. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5547-9_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation