TY - JOUR
T1 - Detecting deception in suspects
T2 - verbal cues as a function of interview strategy
AU - Hartwig, M.
AU - Granhag, P.
AU - Stomwall, L.
AU - Wolf, A.
AU - Vrij, Aldert
AU - Roos af Hjelmsater, E.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - Research on deception has consistently shown that people are poor at detecting deception, partly due to lack of consistent cues to deception. This research focuses on eliciting verbal cues to deception when questioning suspects who deny crime and how such cues differ due to type of questioning. An experiment examined verbal differences between innocent and guilty mock suspects (N=96) as a function of veracity and interview style (Free recall, Probes, or Free recall plus Probes). Guilty (vs innocent) suspects omitted more crime-relevant information and their statements were more likely to contradict the evidence, showing that statement–evidence inconsistency was a cue to deception. This cue to deception was more pronounced when the interview contained probes. Lie-catchers (N=192) obtained an accuracy rate higher than chance (61.5%) for detecting deceptive denials. Implications for further research on verbal cues to deception are discussed.
AB - Research on deception has consistently shown that people are poor at detecting deception, partly due to lack of consistent cues to deception. This research focuses on eliciting verbal cues to deception when questioning suspects who deny crime and how such cues differ due to type of questioning. An experiment examined verbal differences between innocent and guilty mock suspects (N=96) as a function of veracity and interview style (Free recall, Probes, or Free recall plus Probes). Guilty (vs innocent) suspects omitted more crime-relevant information and their statements were more likely to contradict the evidence, showing that statement–evidence inconsistency was a cue to deception. This cue to deception was more pronounced when the interview contained probes. Lie-catchers (N=192) obtained an accuracy rate higher than chance (61.5%) for detecting deceptive denials. Implications for further research on verbal cues to deception are discussed.
U2 - 10.1080/10683160903446982
DO - 10.1080/10683160903446982
M3 - Article
SN - 1068-316X
VL - 17
SP - 643
EP - 656
JO - Psychology, Crime & Law
JF - Psychology, Crime & Law
IS - 7
ER -