Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that the strategic use of evidence (SUE) approach of interviewing criminal suspects is effective at eliciting cues to deception. This study aims at expanding on the SUE approach by testing the technique of general-to-specific evidence framing. We conducted an experiment using a mock terrorism paradigm. Guilty participants took part in a simulated act of terrorism, while innocent participants performed a similar act involving no transgression. All participants (N = 102) were then interviewed using one of four evidence disclosure styles (early disclosure, late disclosure, 2-step disclosure, or 4-step disclosure). We expected that disclosing evidence to the suspect gradually, with increasing specificity, would induce guilty suspects to alter their statements to a greater extent than innocent suspects. General-to-specific evidence framing effectively discriminated between guilty and innocent suspects, but results only partially supported the hypotheses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bond CF Jr, DePaulo BM (2006) Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 10:214–234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
Bond CF Jr, DePaulo BM (2008) Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias. Psychol Bull 134:477–492. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477
DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129:74–118. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.129.1.74
Gilovich T, Savitsky K, Medvec V (1998) The illusion of transparency: biased assessments of others’ ability to read one's emotional states. J Personal Soc Psychol 75:332–346. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.332
Granhag PA, Hartwig M (2008) A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: on the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychol Crime Law 14:189–200. doi:10.1080/10683160701645181
Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (1999) Repeated interrogations: stretching the deception detection paradigm. Expert Evid 7:163–174. doi:10.1023/A:1008993326434
Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Willén RM, Hartwig M (2012) Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: the first test of the Evidence Framing Matrix. Leg Criminol Psychol. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02047.x
Hartwig M, Bond CF Jr (2011) Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychol Bull 137:643–659. doi:10.1037/a0023589
Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Vrij A (2005) Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law Human Behav 29:469–484. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-5521-x
Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Kronkvist O (2006) Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works. Law Human Behav 30:603–619. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9
Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (2007) Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychol Crime & Law 13:213–227. doi:10.1080/10683160600750264
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. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 9:1–12. doi:10.1002/jip.1350
Kassin SM (2005) On the psychology of confessions: does innocence put innocents at risk? Am Psychol 60:215–228. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
Kassin SM, Fong CT (1999) ‘I’m innocent!’: effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law Human Behav 23:499–516. doi:10.1023/A:1022330011811
Kassin SM, Gudjonsson GH (2004) The psychology of confessions: a review of the literature and issues. Psychol Sci Publ Interest 5:33–67. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x
Kassin SM, Norwick RJ (2004) Why people waive their miranda rights: the power of innocence. Law Human Behav 28:211–221. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5
Kassin SM, Appleby SC, Perillo J (2010) Interviewing suspects: practice, science, and future directions. Leg Criminol Psychol 15:39–55. doi:10.1348/135532509X449361
King L, Snook B (2009) Peering inside a Canadian interrogation room: an examination of the Reid model of interrogation, influence tactics, and coercive strategies. Criminal Justice Behav 36:674–694. doi:10.1177/0093854809335142
Leo R (1996) Inside the interrogation room. J Crim Law Crimol 86:266–303. doi:10.2307/1144028
Lerner MJ (1980) The belief in a just world. Plenum, New York
Park H, Levine TR, McCornack SA, Morrison K, Ferrara M (2002) How people really detect lies. Commun Monogr 69:144–157. doi:10.1080/714041710
Soukara S, Bull R, Vrij A, Turner M, Cherryman J (2009) What really happens in police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions. Psychol Crime Law 15:493–506. doi:10.1080/10683160802201827
Strömwall LA, Hartwig M, Granhag P (2006) To act truthfully: nonverbal behaviour and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychol Crime Law 12:207–219. doi:10.1080/10683160512331331328
Wagenaar WA, van Koppen PJ, Crombag HM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work is funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group / J-FBI-10-009 awarded to Maria Hartwig. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Government.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luke, T.J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L. et al. Interviewing to Elicit Cues to Deception: Improving Strategic Use of Evidence with General-To-Specific Framing of Evidence. J Police Crim Psych 28, 54–62 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9113-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9113-7