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

  • Kevin Colwell
  • Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman
  • Jacquelyn Fede


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.


Free Recall Target Event Impression Management Content Criterion Present Volume 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



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


  1. Akehurst, L., Koehnken, G., & Hofer, E. (1995). Content credibility of accounts derived from live and video presentations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Colwell, K. (1997). Interviewing techniques and the psycholinguistic assessment of statement credibility. Unpublished master’s thesis. Sam Houston State University: Huntsville, Texas.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colwell, K., Hiscock, C. K., & Memon, A. (2002). Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Memon, A., Omerod, T.C., & Dando, C.J. (2012). Truth or lies: Reality monitoring and deception detection. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  47. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1995). Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 1(4), 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Undeutsch, U. (1954). Die Entwicklung der gerichtspsychologischen Gutachtertätigkeit. Oxford, England: Hogrefe, Verlag Fuer Psychologie.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 11(1), 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 141–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Colwell
    • 1
  • Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman
    • 2
  • Jacquelyn Fede
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySouthern Connecticut State UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.The National UniversityLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations