The Language of Detecting Deceit

Kalbfleisch, Pamela J.

doi:10.1177/0261927x94134006

Cited by 29 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a thorough discussion of the various stages of the Reid Technique and its psychological effects, see Gudjonsson (2003) and Kassin, Goldstein, and Savitsky (2003), and for a discussion on other tactics proposed in police manuals, see Kalbfleisch (1994).…”

Section: The Reid Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence.

Hartwig

Granhag

Strömwall

et al. 2005

Law and Human Behavior

186

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several decades of research has shown that people are poor at detecting deception. This thesis, based on four empirical studies, aimed at exploring human deception detection accuracy in the context of interrogations. In three of the studies, there was a special focus on the presence of evidence in the interrogation, and how strategic use of this evidence affected the statements of the suspects as well as the accuracy of the lie-catchers. In previous research, the fact that there in real-life situations often exists evidence against a suspect has been neglected. It was expected that it would be beneficial for deception detection to withhold the evidence during the interrogation, and that this would lead to liars contradicting the incriminating information to a higher degree compared to truth tellers. Differences in statement-evidence consistency between liars and truth tellers could then serve as a cue leading to more accurate veracity judgments. In Study I, experienced police officers (N = 30) were set free to conduct interrogations with mock suspects in the manner of their own choice. They also watched a video-taped interrogation conducted by one of their colleagues. Both when interrogating and observing video, the police officers achieved deception detection accuracy levels (56.7%) similar to the level of chance. The aim of Study II was to examine the effects of disclosing the evidence at different stages of the interrogation. It was expected that disclosing the evidence late (vs. early) in the interrogation would provide a better basis for correct veracity judgments. The reason for this was that late disclosure of evidence would make liars and truth tellers differ in terms of statement-evidence consistency. Mock suspects (N = 58) were interrogated by experimenters. Lie-catchers (N = 116) who watched late disclosure interrogations (accuracy 61.7%) significantly outperformed those who watched early disclosure interrogations (accuracy 42.9%). In Study III, police trainees (N = 82) either were or were not trained in strategically using the evidence when interrogating lying or truth telling mock suspects (N = 82). Liars interrogated by trained interrogators were more inconsistent with the evidence compared to liars interrogated by untrained interrogators. Trained interrogators obtained a considerably higher accuracy rate (85.4%) than untrained interrogators (56.1%). In Study IV, the strategies reported by the suspects (N = 82) in Study III were examined. Guilty suspects, to a higher degree than innocent suspects, applied conscious strategies in order to appear truthful. Guilty suspects reported diverse strategies (such as to provide a consistent story or an alibi), while innocent suspects reported the strategy to tell the truth like it had happened, indicating a belief in the visibility of innocence (i.e., they thought that innocence shows). The results of the thesis show that when the evidence is not used strategically during an interrogation, deception detection accuracy is poor. However, when the evidence is us...

show abstract

Section: The Reid Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence.

Hartwig

Granhag

Strömwall

et al. 2005

Law and Human Behavior

186

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Across studies, meta-analysis indicates that the mean accuracy rate is about 57% (Kraut, 1980), and literature reviews conclude that the accuracy rates reported in individual studies almost always fall within the range of 45-70% accuracy (e.g., Feeley & Young, 1998;Kalbfleisch, 1994;Miller & Stiff, 1993;Vrij, 2000). In short, the belief that deception detection accuracy rates are only slightly better than 50/50 is among the most well-documented and most commonly held conclusions in deception research.…”

Section: Deception Detection Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Effects of Nonverbal Behavior Training on Accuracy in Deception Detection with the Inclusion of a Bogus Training Control Group

Levine¹,

Feeley²,

McCornack³

et al. 2005

Western Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Minimisation provides a range of 'face-saving' tactics, which encourage the suspect to make an admission (Kalbfl eisch, 1994). Along with implying to the suspect that they really have no options (other than to confess), minimisation was not considered an acceptable interview tactic by participants in this particular study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Directly asking the suspect about their involvement in the crime (direct approach) was also considered acceptable by the majority of participants. This tactic aims to appeal to the suspect on moral grounds; that is, to simply tell the truth (Kalbfl eisch, 1994). In their post-PACE study on police questioning techniques in the UK, Moston and Engelberg (1993) found that in the initial stage of an interview, police would use one of two approaches: either ask the suspect for their version of the offence (information gathering) or use accusatorial strategies designed to elicit a confession.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%