Should Police Use ACID? Training and Credibility Assessment Using Transcripts Versus Recordings

Colwell, Kevin; James-Kangal, Neslihan; Hiscock‐Anisman, Cheryl; Phelan, Vivian

doi:10.1080/15228932.2015.1035187

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(b) The interviews are existing techniques that are not difficult for professionals (Colwell et al, ; Colwell et al, ) or lay people (Colwell et al, 2009; Montalvo et al, ) to learn and apply. (c) The content criteria are also easy to train and apply (Colwell et al, 2009; Colwell et al, ). (d) There are no special tools required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, an electronic statement can easily be fed into Wordscan software. A recorded statement must be transcribed at present in order to use Wordscan, but this same recording can be assessed directly by those trained in detail analysis (Colwell et al, ; Montalvo et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Detecting deception is difficult for professionals and laypersons alike (Colwell, James‐Kangal, Hiscock‐Anisman, & Phelan, ; Hauch, Sporer, Michael, & Meissner, ; Mann, Vrij, & Bull, ; Porter & Brinke, ). However, certain interview techniques can enhance recall for honest respondents yet increase the difficulty experienced by deceptive respondents.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, certain interview techniques can enhance recall for honest respondents yet increase the difficulty experienced by deceptive respondents. The concept of differential recall enhancement (DRE) was created to explain the performance of these techniques (Colwell et al, ; Colwell, Hiscock‐Anisman, & Fede, ). Thus, interviews that generate more DRE lead to larger differences between honest and deceptive statements and improve the detection of deception (Ansarra et al, 2011; Colwell, Hiscock, & Memon, ; Colwell et al, 2009; Colwell, Hiscock‐Anisman, Memon, Rachel, & Colwell, ; Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Kronkvist, ; Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, ; Liu et al, ; Suckle‐Nelson et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…of these techniques (Colwell et al, 2015;Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, & Fede, 2013). Thus, interviews that generate more DRE lead to larger differences between honest and deceptive statements and improve the detection of deception 1 (Ansarra et al, 2011;Colwell, Hiscock, & Memon, 2002;Colwell et al, 2009;Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Rachel, & Colwell, 2007;Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Kronkvist, 2006;Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2005;Liu et al, 2010;Suckle-Nelson et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

Rosa

Hiscock‐Anisman

Blythe

et al. 2018

Journal Invest Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the Stepwise Interview, Cognitive Interview, and Reality Interview in detecting deception with inmates. The dependent measures were the amount of unique details provided during the free narrative and mnemonics and the number of words provided during the free narrative and mnemonics of each interview. The Stepwise Interview generated 58.3% accuracy, the Cognitive Interview generated 70.0% accuracy, and the Reality Interview generated 93.3% accuracy. The different tasks of these interviews increased the differences between honest and deceptive statements and therefore, increased the accuracy in detection of deception. Differential recall enhancement is used to explain the findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

Rosa

Hiscock‐Anisman

Blythe

et al. 2018

Journal Invest Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Using the Reality Interview improves the accuracy of the Criteria‐Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring

Bogaard

Colwell

Crans

2019

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryActive interviewing approaches can exploit the verbal differences between truthtellers and liars, thus improving detecting deception. One such method is the Reality Interview (RI) aimed to facilitate recall from truthtellers, while increasing the difficulty for liars. This study investigated whether the RI could improve the diagnostic accuracy of the Reality Monitoring and the Criteria‐Based Content Analysis. Liars and truthtellers were either asked to freely recall an event or interviewed with the RI. As hypothesized, the RI improved the discriminability of Reality Monitoring and Criteria‐Based Content Analysis over Free Recall. Honest responses were longer, and the RI increased the word count difference between honest and false statements. However, after correcting for word count, results were no longer significant, showing its importance for deception detection. Nonetheless, the RI increased verbal differences between truthtellers and liars, demonstrating that using the RI with verbal credibility assessment tools is a powerful combination for investigative interviewing.

show abstract

Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve the accuracy of human observers?

Giolla

Luke

2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The current meta‐analysis examines the cognitive approach to lie detection. Our goal was to assess the practical utility of this approach by examining whether it improves the lie detection ability of human observers. The cognitive approach to lie detection led to an average accuracy rate of 60.00%, 95% CI [56.42; 63.53] and a bias corrected average accuracy rate of 55.03%, 95% CI [48.83; 61.16]. Critically, this result is moderated by whether observers were informed, or not, about which cues to focus on. Naïve observers had average accuracy rates of 52.37%, 95% CI [48.80%; 55.93%], little better than chance. In contrast, informed observers had average accuracy rates of 75.81%, 95% CI [71.52%; 79.86%]. This promising result is qualified by indications of publication bias, considerable heterogeneity between studies, and a lack of research on important practical issues, such as the influence of counter‐measures. Although these shortcomings raise a note of caution, we remain optimistic about future research on the topic.

show abstract

Should Police Use ACID? Training and Credibility Assessment Using Transcripts Versus Recordings

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

Using the Reality Interview improves the accuracy of the Criteria‐Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring

Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve the accuracy of human observers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About