Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Inconsistent Suspect: A Systematic Review of Different Types of Consistency in Truth Tellers and Liars

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Investigative Interviewing

Abstract

Many people believe that inconsistency is a sign of lying, and that consistency is a sign of truth telling. The present chapter assesses the validity of these popular beliefs. We review the literature on the relationship between consistency and deception, and present an overview of effect sizes obtained in studies on this topic. Four different types of consistency are explored, namely: within-statement consistency, between-statement consistency, within-group consistency, and statement-evidence consistency. We also discuss three interview approaches designed to amplify differences between liars and truth tellers—the unanticipated-question approach, the cognitive-load approach, and the Strategic Use of Evidence technique—and examine their impact on different types of consistency. Finally, we identify limitations and gaps in the literature and provide directions for future research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
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.

    Note that the SMD was larger for the early-disclosure condition due to the small standard deviation for innocent suspects in that condition (the accuracy of which was confirmed with the authors of the article).

  2. 2.

    It should be noted that the large difference between liars and truth tellers in the SUE-Incremental condition was due to the relatively high level of statement-evidence consistency observed for truth tellers in this condition. Contrary to expectations, deceptive statements in the SUE-Incremental condition were nearly as consistent with the evidence as those in the Early Evidence condition.

References

  • Aron, R., & Rosner, J. L. (1985). How to prepare witnesses for trial. Colorado Springs: Shepard’s/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., Eysenck, M., & Anderson, M. C. (2009). Memory. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, N., Potter, R., Fisher, R. P., Bond, N., & Luszcz, M. A. (1999). Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 297–313. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199908)13:4<297::aid-acp578>3.0.co;2-s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caso, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & De Leo, G. (2006). Deceptive responses: The impact of verbal and non-verbal countermeasures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 99–111. doi:10.1348/135532505x49936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259. doi:10.1177/1745691612439584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, F., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Vrij, A., Landström, S., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., & Hartwig, M. (2010). Skulking around the dinosaur: Eliciting cues to children’s deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 925–940. doi:10.1002/acp.1597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crombag, H. F. M., Van Koppen, P. J., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1992). Dubieuze zaken: De psychologie van strafrechtelijk bewijs (4th ed.). Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Contact.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando, C. J., & Bull, R. (2011). Maximising opportunities to detect verbal deception: Training police officers to interview tactically. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 189–202. doi:10.1002/jip.145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando, C. J., Bull, R., Ormerod, T. C., & Sandham, A. L. (2013). Helping to sort the liars from the truth-tellers: The gradual revelation of information during investigative interviews. Legal and Criminological Psychology, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12016.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, M., Wagenaar, W. A., Wolters, G., & Verstijnen, I. M. (2005). Familiar face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: A practical tool for use in the courtroom. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 87–97. doi:10.1080/10683160410001715123.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K., & Keysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 760–768. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P., & Perez, V. (2007). Memory-enhancing techniques for interviewing crime suspects. In S. A. Christianson (Ed.), Offenders’ memories of violent crimes (pp. 329–354). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, G. G. (1998). Self-awareness and the evolution of social intelligence. Behavioural Processes, 42, 239–247. doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(97)00079-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332–346. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L., & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26, 651–658. doi:10.3758/BF03211385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A. (2010). The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique: A scientific perspective. Paper presented at the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG, FBI). HIG Research Symposium: Interrogation in the European Union, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 189–200. doi:10.1080/10683160701645181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (1999). Repeated interrogations—Stretching the deception detection paradigm. Expert Evidence, 7, 163–174. doi:10.1023/a:1008993326434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2000a). Deception detection: Examining the consistency heuristic. In C. M. Breur, M. M. Kommer, J. F. Nijboer & J. M. Reintjes (Eds.), New trends in criminal investigation and evidence (Vol. 2, pp. 309–321). Antwerpen: Intresentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2000b). Effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6, 197–218. doi:10.1080/10683160008409804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2001). Deception detection based on repeated interrogations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 85–101. doi:10.1348/135532501168217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and non-verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–257. doi:10.1002/acp.784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Jonsson, A.C. (2003). Partners in crime: How liars in collusion betray themselves. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 848–868. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01928.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., Rangmar, J., & Strömwall, L. A. (2012a). Small cells of suspects: Eliciting cues to deception by strategic interviewing. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Willén, R. M., & Hartwig, M. (2012b). Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: The first test of the Evidence Framing Matrix. Legal and Criminological Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02047.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greuel, L. (1992). Police officers’ beliefs about cues associated with deception in rape cases. In F. Lösel, D. Bender & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law —International perspectives (pp. 234–239). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    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, 643–659. doi:10.1037/a0023589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 469–484. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-5521-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 213–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 10–16. doi:10.2174/1874917801003010010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L., Wolf, A. G., Vrij, A., & Roos af Hjelmsäter, E. (2011). Detecting deception in suspects: Verbal cues as a function of interview strategy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 643–656. doi:10.1080/10683160903446982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. K., Barnacz, A., Yokkaichi, T., Rubio, J., Racioppi, C., Shackelford, T. K., Fisher, M. L., Keenan, J. P. (2005). Me, myself, and lie: The role of self-awareness in deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1847–1853. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, S., Hartwig, M., Wallace, B., Dawson, E., & Xhihani, A. (2012). Early versus late disclosure of evidence: Effects on verbal cues to deception, confessions, and lie catchers’ accuracy. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9, 1–12. doi:10.1002/jip.1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, G. L. J., Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Waller, B. (2012). Sorting the liars from the truth tellers: The benefits of asking unanticipated questions on lie detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi:10.1002/acp.2879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leins, D. A., Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Mann, S. (2011). Using sketch drawing to induce inconsistency in liars. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 253–265. doi:10.1348/135532510x501775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leins, D. A., Fisher, R. P., & Vrij, A. (2012). Drawing on liars’ lack of cognitive flexibility: Detecting deception through varying report modes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 601–607. doi:10.1002/acp.2837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Granhag, P. A., Landström, S., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2010). “Can you remember what was in your pocket when you were stung by a bee?”: Eliciting cues to deception by asking the unanticipated. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 31–36. doi:10.2174/1874917801003010031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (2003). Our changeable memories: Legal and practical implications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 231–234. doi:10.1038/nrn1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markson, L., & Paterson, K. B. (2009). Effects of gaze-aversion on visual-spatial imagination. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 553–563. doi: 10.1348/000712608X371762.

    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, and Law, 16, 340–372. doi:10.1037/a0020518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, R., & Brewer, N. (1999). Perceptions of witness behaviour-accuracy relationships held by police, lawyers and mock-jurors. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 6, 97–103. doi:10.1080/13218719909524952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., Öhman, L., Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2012). ‘Mapping’ deception in adolescents: Eliciting cues to deceit through an unanticipated spatial drawing task. Legal and Criminological Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02068.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 19–36. doi:10.1080/10683160308138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Children’s repeated lies and truths: Effects on adults’ judgments and reality monitoring scores. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12, 345–356. doi:10.1375/pplt.12.2.345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). Detecting deceit in pairs of children. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1285–1304. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00213.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A., & Jonsson, A.-C. (2003). Deception among pairs: “Let’s say we had lunch and hope they will swallow it!”. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 109–124. doi:10.1080/1068316031000116238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2002). Development of lying to conceal a transgression: Children’s control of expressive behaviour during verbal deception. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 436–444. doi:10.1080/01650250143000373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Brinke, L., & Porter, S. (2012). Cry me a river: Identifying the behavioural consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 469–477. doi:10.1037/h0093929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Brinke, L., Porter, S., & Baker, A. (2012). Darwin the detective: Observable facial muscle contractions reveal emotional high-stakes lies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 411–416. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.12.003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen, P. J. (2012). Deception detection in police interrogations: Closing in on the context of criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 124–125. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.04.005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vredeveldt, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2012). Eye-closure improves memory for a witnessed event under naturalistic conditions. Psychology, Crime & Law. doi:10.1080/1068316x.2012.700313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vredeveldt, A., & Wagenaar, W. A. (2013). Within-pair consistency in child witnesses: The diagnostic value of telling the same story. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi:10.1002/acp.2921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vredeveldt, A., Hitch, G. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2011). Eyeclosure helps memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1253–1263. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0098-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2006). Challenging interviewees during interviews: The potential effects on lie detection. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 193–206. doi:10.1080/10683160512331331319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Who killed my relative? Police officers’ ability to detect real-life high-stakes lies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 7, 119–132. doi:10.1080/10683160108401791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 110–117. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Morris, P. E. (1997). Individual differences in hand movements during deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 87–102. doi:10.1023/a:1024951902752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2008a). A cognitive load approach to lie detection. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 39–43. doi:10.1002/jip.82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008b). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 159–166. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9143-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010a). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89–121. doi:10.1177/1529100610390861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. (2010b). ‘Look into my eyes’: Can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 327–348. doi:10.1080/10683160902740633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Outsmarting the liars: Toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 28–32. doi:10.1177/0963721410391245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2012). Imposing cognitive load to elicit cues to deceit: Inducing the reverse order technique naturally. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 579–594. doi:10.1080/1068316x.2010.515987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, W. A. (2005). De diagnostische waarde van bewijsmiddelen. In M. J. Sjerps & J. A. C. van Voorhout (Eds.), Het onzekere bewijs: Gebruik van statistiek en kansrekening in het strafrecht (pp. 3–26). Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, W. A., & Dalderop, A. (1994). Remembering the zoo: A comparison of true and false stories told by pairs of witnesses. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Experimental Psychology, Leiden University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, W. A., & Van Der Schrier, J. H. (1996). Face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: A practical tool for use in the courtroom. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, 321–332. doi:10.1080/10683169608409787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagstaff, G. F., Wheatcroft, J. M., Caddick, A. M., Kirby, L. J., & Lamont, E. (2011). Enhancing witness memory with techniques derived from hypnotic investigative interviewing: Focused meditation, eye-closure, and context reinstatement. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 59, 146–164. doi:10.1080/00207144.2011.546180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Mahoney, K., Doverspike, D., & Griffith-Ross, D. (2009). Cognitive lie detection: Response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 33–49. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9090-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Griffith, D. A., Yates, R., Visconte, S. R., Simoneaux, B., & Harris, L. L. (2012). LIE detection by inducing cognitive load: Eye movements and other cues to the false answers of “witnesses” to crimes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 887–909. doi:10.1177/0093854812437014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Annelies Vredeveldt

  2. VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Peter J. van Koppen

  3. Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Peter J. van Koppen

  4. University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden

    Pär Anders Granhag

Authors
  1. Annelies Vredeveldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter J. van Koppen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pär Anders Granhag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annelies Vredeveldt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

    Ray Bull

Appendix 1: Effect Size Estimates

Appendix 1: Effect Size Estimates

Standardized Mean Difference

For studies in which mean consistency scores were obtained, we examined the standardized mean difference (SMD) between liars and truth tellers as an indicator of effect size. Because this measure tends to be upwardly biased when based on small samples, we provide an unbiased estimate of the SMD throughout this chapter (using the correction provided by Hedges (1981), which is depicted in the second part of the equation below), calculated as:

$$ \text{SMD}=\left( \frac{{{{\bar{X}}}_{T}}-{{{\bar{X}}}_{L}}}{{{s}_{p}}} \right)\left( 1-\frac{3}{4N-9} \right), $$

where \({{\bar{X}}_{T}}\) is the mean consistency score for truth tellers, \({{\bar{X}}_{L}}\) is the mean consistency score for liars, N is the total sample size and s p is the pooled standard deviation, calculated as:

$$ {{s}_{p}}=\sqrt{\frac{({{n}_{T}}-1)s_{T}^{2}+({{n}_{L}}-1)s_{L}^{2}}{({{n}_{T}}-1)+({{n}_{L}}-1)}}, $$

where \({{n}_{T}}\) is the number of truth tellers, \({{n}_{L}}\) is the number of liars, \({{s}_{T}}\) is the standard deviation for truth tellers, and \({{s}_{L}}\) is the standard deviation for liars.

Odds Ratio

For studies that used frequencies of consistent and inconsistent details for liars and truth tellers as the dependent measure, we examined the odds ratio (OR) as an indicator of effect size. The odds ratio is calculated as:

$$ \text{Odds ratio}=\frac{ad}{bc}, $$

where a is the number of consistent details provided by truth tellers, b the number of inconsistent details provided by truth tellers, c the number of consistent details provided by liars, and d the number of inconsistent details provided by liars (cf. Lipsey and Wilson 2001). An OR of 1 would indicate no relationship between consistency and truth telling, an OR greater than 1 suggests that consistency is predictive of truth telling, and an OR between 0 and 1 suggests that consistency is predictive of lying. For example, an OR of 4 would indicate that the odds of consistency are four times greater for truth tellers than for liars, whereas an OR of 0.25 would indicate that the odds of consistency are four times smaller for truth tellers than for liars.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vredeveldt, A., van Koppen, P., Granhag, P.A. (2014). The Inconsistent Suspect: A Systematic Review of Different Types of Consistency in Truth Tellers and Liars. In: Bull, R. (eds) Investigative Interviewing. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation