Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility

The objective of this study is the development of an applicable comprehensive questioning and statement analysis procedure. One hundred and thirty-six male residents of the Wynne Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division (TDCJ--ID) witnessed a staged theft, and provided testimony. Interview formats followed semi-standardized scripts derived from Structured Interview, Inferential Interview and Cognitive Interview techniques. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions in a 2(honesty of reporting) × 3(interview technique) matrix. Results found a 62% classification accuracy for the Structured Interview, 68% for the Cognitive Interview and 82% for the Inferential Interview, when comparisons were made between treatment phases of each interview condition. When responses given to each interview segment were analysed, 83% of the Structured Interview transcripts were correctly identified, as were 91% of the Inferential and 92.9% of the Cognitive Interview statements. The desire to prevaricate while escaping detection produced statements which were systematically different from honest reporting, as seen in the variables of coherence, response length, type-token ratio, and verbal hedges. These results indicate a potential forensic utility for strategies which attempt to detect deception through a combination of qualitative and quantitative statement characteristics, and underscore the need for systematic, question-by-question analysis of eyewitness statements. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Language: en

[1]  Malcolm R. Parks,et al.  Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side of Trust , 1986 .

[2]  J. Yuille,et al.  Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. , 1993 .

[3]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. , 1979, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  J. Dennett,et al.  The cognitive interview technique: Reviving the issues , 1993 .

[5]  Günter Köhnken,et al.  The cognitive interview and the assessment of the credibility of adults' statements. , 1995 .

[6]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases , 1988 .

[7]  Günter Köhnken,et al.  Effects of the cognitive interview on the recall of familiar and unfamiliar events. , 1995 .

[8]  B. Depaulo,et al.  On-the-Job Experience and Skill at Detecting Deception1 , 1986 .

[9]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Cue-dependent forgetting. , 1974 .

[10]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. , 1995 .

[11]  Harry Hollien,et al.  The Acoustics of Crime: The New Science of Forensic Phonetics , 1990 .

[12]  Jennifer A. Epstein,et al.  Effects of Importance of Success and Expectations for Success on Effectiveness at Deceiving , 1991 .

[13]  J. Yuille.  The systematic assessment of children's testimony. , 1988 .

[14]  C. F. Bond,et al.  The miscommunication of deception: An adaptive perspective , 1985 .

[15]  T. Levine,et al.  When the Alteration of Information Is Viewed as Deception: An Empirical Test of Information Manipulation Theory. , 1992 .

[16]  R. Fisher,et al.  Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview , 1992 .

[17]  B. Depaulo,et al.  The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions , 1988 .

[18]  A. Vrij,et al.  Verbal communication and credibility: statement validity assessment , 1998 .

[19]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  The less travelled road to truth: verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self‐experienced events , 1997 .

[20]  Steven A. Mccornack.  Information manipulation theory , 1992 .

[21]  S. Porter,et al.  Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis. , 1994 .

[22]  D. Mackinnon,et al.  Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview: cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. , 1985, The Journal of applied psychology.

[23]  P. Ekman,et al.  Who can catch a liar? , 1991, The American psychologist.

[24]  P. Ekman,et al.  Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception †. , 1969, Psychiatry.

[25]  R. Bull,et al.  Eyewitness performance in cognitive and structured interviews. , 1997, Memory.

[26]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology and the Law , 1995 .

[27]  J. Yuille,et al.  A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. , 1986, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  Ray Bull,et al.  Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility , 2000 .

[29]  J. Yuille,et al.  Assessing the credibility of true and false statements. , 1995, International journal of law and psychiatry.

[30]  P. Ekman,et al.  Detecting deception from the body or face. , 1974 .

[31]  Reliability of evidence: Arne Trankell: Beckmans, 1972. 163 pp. $4.50 , 1974 .

[32]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. , 1996 .

[33]  R. Elliott,et al.  Eyewitnesses Credible and Discredible1 , 1988 .

[34]  P. Ekman,et al.  Smiles when lying. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial , 1992 .

[36]  The Statistical Profile of Language Behavior with Machiavellian Intent or While Experiencing Caution and Avoiding Self‐Incrimination , 1990 .

[37]  Klaus R. Scherer,et al.  Invited article: Face, voice, and body in detecting deceit , 1991 .

[38]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[39]  J. Brigham,et al.  The usefulness of the criteria-based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations: A critical review. , 1997 .

[40]  Paul Ekman,et al.  Lying and nonverbal behavior: Theoretical issues and new findings , 1988 .