Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian A. Meissner on Jun 03, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
A positive, collaborative, and theoretically-based approach to improving deception detection
... We are pleased that our cognitive interviewing to detect deception approach received support from a large number of academics and professional commentators (Bond, 2012;Evans, Houston, & Meissner, 2012;Kassin, 2012;Lane & Vieira, 2012;Tedeschini, 2012). Evans et al. (2012) report that they have tested some of our methods themselves and replicated our findings. ...
... We are pleased that our cognitive interviewing to detect deception approach received support from a large number of academics and professional commentators (Bond, 2012;Evans, Houston, & Meissner, 2012;Kassin, 2012;Lane & Vieira, 2012;Tedeschini, 2012). Evans et al. (2012) report that they have tested some of our methods themselves and replicated our findings. This gives further support to our approach. ...
... Lane and Vieira's (2012) discussion about the trade-offs between information elicitation and deception detection is worth considering, as are their views on individual differences in working memory capacity (see also Bond, 2012), and further theoretical refinement of the cognitive and social processes involved in deception. Evans et al. (2012) correctly mention that applying 'group-level' research findings to an 'individual case level' remains a challenge, and we share their views about the importance of researching interpreter-mediated interactions, networks (rather than individuals) and lying about future events (rather than past events). In fact, we have started examining 'lying in networks' and 'lying about intentions'. ...
Highlights
► Academics and practitioners endorsed our new cognitive approach to lie detection. ► Collaboration between academics and practitioners is needed to make progress in lie detection research. ► Some practitioners have limited interest in academic research, and prefer the ‘comfort zone that is the status quo’. ► Some academics believe that old research paradigms can still answer new question. ► Some academics see trends in data that we do not see.
... In closing, I would be remiss if I did not urge scholars to pursue a positive, collaborative relationship with professionals (Evans, Houston, & Meissner, 2012;Meissner, Hartwig, & Russano, 2010). Over the past decade, I have been granted many opportunities to work with law enforcement, military, and intelligence professionals on a variety of projects. ...
The current article presents a series of commentaries on urgent issues and prospects in reforming interrogation practices in Canada and the United States. Researchers and practitioners, who have devoted much of their careers to the field of police and intelligence interrogations, were asked to provide their insights on an area of interrogation research that they believe requires immediate attention. The submitted independent commentaries covered a variety of topics – from police recruitment, interrogation training, use of proper interrogation practices, and the treatment of confession evidence in court. Common concerns from the contributions pertained to the lag between scientific knowledge on interrogations and the application of such knowledge in the justice system, and the glaring disparity between the treatment of similar issues in the interrogation context versus other criminal justice contexts. A primary intent of this collection of commentaries is to serve as a resource pointing researchers in the direction of the fundamental areas that require immediate consideration and encouraging them to simultaneously pursue solutions to the overarching concerns that emerged from this project.
... Over the past few years, researchers have also called for a more positive approach where the aim is to offer scientifically based techniques that might improve the diagnostic value of confessions (e.g., Evans et al. 2012;Meissner et al. 2010a). To this end, our laboratory has conducted a number of studies designed to assess the effectiveness of various interrogative approaches on confession likelihood (Horgan et al. 2012;Narchet et al. 2011;Russano et al. 2005a). ...
Recent controversies over the use of psychologically manipulative interrogation methods by U.S. law enforcement, and public concerns regarding the use of physically coercive interrogation methods, have highlighted the need for evidence-based, ethical approaches to facilitate the collection of diagnostic information during interrogation. Over the past few years, our laboratory has sought to better understand the psychological processes that might distinguish true and false confessions from guilty and innocent persons, respectively. Various psychological or decision-making models have been proposed to account for the role of social, cognitive, and affective factors which may lead to a suspect truthfully or falsely confessing. Of note is that little empirical data has sought to assess the validity of these proposed theories. We present here a meta-analysis of the social, cognitive, and affective factors leading to confession across experimental laboratory studies we have conducted using the Russano et al. (Psychological Science 16:481–486, 2005) paradigm. We synthesize this research by proposing a process model that highlights key differences in the psychological states that lead to true and false confessions, focusing on the role of internal and external pressures to confess as the principle mediating mechanism. Specifically, truthful confessions were found to be associated with affect or the emotional response to the interrogation, perceptions of the strength of evidence regarding involvement in the incident, feelings of guilt and the perceived consequences of confessing. In contrast, false confessions were associated with the perceived external pressures originating both from the interrogator and the interrogative context, as well as a perception of the consequences of confessing. Thus, a conception of the role of internal and external psychological mechanisms leading to variation in true and false confessions will be discussed, including the implications of such findings for the development of interrogative approaches that can lead to the elicitation of diagnostic confession evidence.
... The reverse order instruction was originally used as a memory enhancing technique as part of the cognitive interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). It has since been effectively applied in deception research both in the laboratory Vrij, Leal, Mann, & Fisher, 2012) and in the field (Evans, Houston, & Meissner, 2012;Zimmerman, Veinott, Meissner, Fallon, & Mueller, 2010). ...
We examined the effect of (i) a second interviewer's demeanour and (ii) asking expected and unexpected questions on cues to deception. We predicted that liars compared with truth tellers would provide more detail to expected questions and less detail to unexpected questions, particularly when the second interviewer is supportive. Liars prepare answers for expected questions, and a supportive interviewer will encourage them to provide more detail. By definition, liars have not prepared answers for unexpected questions, and their answers to such questions will be less detailed. Participants (N = 168) appeared before two interviewers: The first asked all the questions, and the second remained silent. The second interviewer exhibited either a supportive or a neutral demeanour. As predicted, liars provided more detail to expected questions and less detail to unexpected questions, particularly when the second interviewer was supportive. In conclusion, a supportive second interviewer elicits cues to deceit.
Background
The present experiment examined how the presence of an interpreter during investigative interviews affects eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport.MethodA total of 60 native English speakers were interviewed in English and 183 non-native English speakers were interviewed in English (a foreign language) or through an interpreter who interpreted their answers sentence by sentence (short consecutive interpretation) or summarized their answers (long consecutive interpretation). Interviewees discussed the job they had (truth tellers) or pretended to have (liars).ResultsInterviewees who spoke through an interpreter provided less detail than interviewees who spoke in their first language and a foreign language (English) without an interpreter. Additionally, cues to deceit occurred more frequently when interviewees spoke without an interpreter. The presence of an interpreter had no effect on rapport.Conclusion
The findings suggest that at present there are no benefits to using an interpreter with regard to eliciting information. Future research should investigate how best to utilize an interpreter to gain maximum detail from an interview.
We conducted a systematic review of the published and unpublished literatures on the interview and interrogation of suspects. Our focus was to examine the impact of accusatorial versus information gathering approaches on the elicitation of confessions. Two meta‐analytic reviews were conducted: one that focused on observational and quasi‐experimental field studies of actual suspects in which ground truth (i.e., veracity of the confession statement) was unknown, and another that assessed experimental, laboratory based studies in which ground truth was known. To be eligible, field studies must have included 1) at least one coded and quantified interviewing/interrogation method and 2) data on confession outcomes tied to the questioning style. Experimental studies must have included 1) at least two distinct interviewing or interrogation styles (e.g., direct questioning and accusatorial approach) and 2) sufficient data on true and/or false confession outcomes. Following an exhaustive search, 5 field studies and 12 experimental studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the analyses. Results revealed that while both information‐gathering and accusatory methods were similarly associated with the production of confessions in field studies, experimental data indicated that the information‐gathering method increased the likelihood of true confessions, while reducing the likelihood of false confessions. Given the small number of independent samples, the current findings are considered preliminary, yet suggestive of the benefits of information‐gathering methods in the interrogative context. Abstract BACKGROUND The interviewing and interrogation of suspects can be particularly important to securing convictions against the guilty and freeing the wrongly accused. There are two general methods of questioning suspects: information‐gathering and accusatorial. The information‐gathering approach, used in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and elsewhere, as more generally in Western Europe, is characterized by rapport‐building, truth‐seeking, and active listening. The accusatorial approach, used primarily in the United States and Canada, is characterized by accusation, confrontation, psychological manipulation, and the disallowing of denials. Which method is more effective has become a hotly debated topic as the number of false confessions identified continues to rise. OBJECTIVES Our objective was to systematically and comprehensively review published and non‐published, experimental and observational studies on the effectiveness of interviewing and interrogation methods. We focus on the questioning of suspects using information‐gathering and accusatorial methods seeking to elicit confessions. SELECTION CRITERIA We conducted two separate meta‐analyses. The first meta‐analysis focused on observational or quasi‐experimental field studies that assess the association between certain interrogation methods and elicitation of a confession statement. Field studies must have included: 1) at least one coded and quantified interviewing/interrogation method; and 2) data on confession outcomes tied to the questioning style. The second meta‐analysis focused on experimental, laboratory‐based studies in which ground truth is known (i.e., whether the confession is factually true or false). Experimental studies must have included: 1) a comparison of at least two distinct interviewing or interrogation styles (e.g., control method and accusatorial); and 2) sufficient data on either true and/or false confession outcomes. Both meta‐analyses focus on the interrogation of “criminal” suspects. We note that whereas the aim of the accusatorial methods is to obtain confessions, the primary aim of information‐gathering methods is to obtain information. Nevertheless, because of the importance placed on confessions in the extant literature and given the current focus on confessions in the analyses reviewed, our primary outcome measure was confession rather than the amount of information gained. SEARCH STRATEGY Several strategies were utilized to locate eligible studies: 1) keyword searches of more than 20 databases; 2) reviewing bibliographies of several relevant books and compendiums; 3) reviewing abstracts from recent conferences; and 4) requests of researchers and practitioners, individually and via listservs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We located 5 studies eligible for the field study meta‐analysis and 12 studies eligible for the experimental study meta‐analysis. We coded outcomes from both study types and report mean effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals. A random effects model was used for analysis of effect sizes. Moderator analyses were conducted when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS We located 5 studies eligible for the field study meta‐analysis and 12 studies eligible for the experimental study meta‐analysis. We coded outcomes from both study types and report mean effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals. A random effects model was used for analysis of effect sizes. Moderator analyses were conducted when appropriate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The available data support the effectiveness of an information‐gathering style of interviewing suspects. Caution is warranted, however, due to the small number of independent samples available for the analysis of both field and experimental studies. Additional research, including the use of quasi‐experimental field studies, appears warranted. Summary We conducted a systematic review of the published and unpublished literatures on the interview and interrogation of suspects. Our focus was to examine the impact of accusatorial versus information‐gathering approaches on the elicitation of confessions. Two meta‐analytic reviews were conducted: one that focused on observational and quasi‐experimental field studies of actual suspects in which ground truth (i.e., veracity of the confession statement) was unknown, and another that assessed experimental, laboratory‐based studies in which ground truth was known. To be eligible, field studies must have included 1) at least one coded and quantified interviewing/interrogation method and 2) data on confession outcomes tied to the questioning style. Experimental studies must have included 1) at least two distinct interviewing or interrogation styles (e.g., direct questioning and accusatorial approach) and 2) sufficient data on true and/or false confession outcomes. Following an exhaustive search, 5 field studies and 12 experimental studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the analyses. Results revealed that while both information‐gathering and accusatory methods were similarly associated with the production of confessions in field studies, experimental data indicated that the information‐gathering method increased the likelihood of true confessions, while reducing the likelihood of false confessions. Given the small number of independent samples, the current findings are considered preliminary, yet suggestive of the benefits of information‐gathering methods in the interrogative context.
The question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such guidance in the present article. The article consists of two parts. The first section focuses on pitfalls to avoid and outlines the major factors that lead to failures in catching liars. Sixteen reasons are clustered into three categories: (a) a lack of motivation to detect lies (because accepting a fabrication might sometimes be more tolerable or pleasant than understanding the truth), (b) difficulties associated with lie detection, and (c) common errors made by lie detectors. We will argue that the absence of nonverbal and verbal cues uniquely related to deceit (akin Pinocchio's growing nose), the existence of typically small differences between truth tellers and liars, and the fact that liars actively try to appear credible contribute to making lie detection a difficult task. Other factors that add to difficulty is that lies are often embedded in truths, that lie detectors often do not receive adequate feedback about their judgments and therefore cannot learn from their mistakes, and that some methods to detect lies violate conversation rules and are therefore difficult to apply in real life. The final factor to be discussed in this category is that some people are just very good liars. The common errors lie detectors make that we have identified are examining the wrong cues (in part, because professionals are taught these wrong cues); placing too great an emphasis on nonverbal cues (in part, because training encourages such emphasis); tending to too-readily interpret certain behaviors, particularly signs of nervousness, as diagnostic of deception; placing too great an emphasis on simplistic rules of thumb; and neglecting inter- and intrapersonal differences. We also discuss two final errors: that many interview strategies advocated by police manuals can impair lie detection, and that professionals tend to overestimate their ability to detect deceit. The second section of this article discusses opportunities for maximizing one's chances of detecting lies and elaborates strategies for improving one's lie-detection skills. Within this section, we first provide five recommendations for avoiding the common errors in detecting lies that we identified earlier in the article. Next, we discuss a relatively recent wave of innovative lie-detection research that goes one step further and introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers by exploiting their different psychological states. In this part of the article, we encourage lie detectors to use an information-gathering approach rather than an accusatory approach and to ask liars questions that they have not anticipated. We also encourage lie detectors to ask temporal questions-questions related to the particular time the interviewee claims to have been at a certain location-when a scripted answer (e.g., "I went to the gym") is expected. For attempts to detect lying about opinions, we introduce the devil's advocate approach, in which investigators first ask interviewees to argue in favor of their personal view and then ask them to argue against their personal view. The technique is based on the principle that it is easier for people to come up with arguments in favor than against their personal view. For situations in which investigators possess potentially incriminating information about a suspect, the "strategic use of evidence" technique is introduced. In this technique, interviewees are encouraged to discuss their activities, including those related to the incriminating information, while being unaware that the interviewer possesses this information. The final technique we discuss is the "imposing cognitive load" approach. Here, the assumption is that lying is often more difficult than truth telling. Investigators could increase the differences in cognitive load that truth tellers and liars experience by introducing mentally taxing interventions that impose additional cognitive demand. If people normally require more cognitive resources to lie than to tell the truth, they will have fewer cognitive resources left over to address these mentally taxing interventions when lying than when truth telling. We discuss two ways to impose cognitive load on interviewees during interviews: asking them to tell their stories in reverse order and asking them to maintain eye contact with the interviewer. We conclude the article by outlining future research directions. We argue that research is needed that examines (a) the differences between truth tellers and liars when they discuss their future activities (intentions) rather than their past activities, (b) lies told by actual suspects in high-stakes situations rather than by university students in laboratory settings, and (c) lies told by a group of suspects (networks) rather than individuals. An additional line of fruitful and important research is to examine the strategies used by truth tellers and liars when they are interviewed. As we will argue in the present article, effective lie-detection interview techniques take advantage of the distinctive psychological processes of truth tellers and liars, and obtaining insight into these processes is thus vital for developing effective lie-detection interview tools.
The discovery of many cases of wrongful conviction in the criminal justice system involving admissions from innocent suspects has led psychologists to examine the factors contributing to false confessions. However, little systematic research has assessed the processes underlying Human Intelligence (HUMINT) interrogations relating to military and intelligence operations. The current article examines the similarities and differences between interrogations in criminal and HUMINT settings, and discusses the extent to which the current empirical literature can be applied to criminal and/or HUMINT interrogations. Finally, areas of future research are considered in light of the need for improving HUMINT interrogation.
Over a century of laboratory research has explored the mechanisms of memory using a variety of paradigms and stimuli. In addition, many researchers have taken up Neisser’s (1978) challenge to examine memory under real-world conditions, most prominently including the eyewitness identification problem. Unfortunately, these “high road” and “low road” perspectives rarely communicate with one another, with the eyewitness field largely adopting an approach that focuses on methodological adherence to conditions that mimic real-world situations. In the current paper we advocate for a “middle road” approach that includes a focus on theory development, an emphasis on the interaction between field and laboratory research, and the implementation of convergent approaches to investigating eyewitness identification. We argue that the field would be invigorated by such an approach, with benefits accruing to our understanding of eyewitness identification and to the development of procedures that will ultimately improve eyewitness accuracy.
There is increasing evidence that false eyewitness identification is the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people. In 1996, the American Psychology/Law Society and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association appointed a subcommittee to review scientific evidence and make recommendations regarding the best procedures for constructing and conducting lineups and photospreads. Three important themes from the scientific literature relevant to lineup methods were identified and reviewed, namely relative-judgment processes, the lineups-as-experiments analogy, and confidence malleability. Recommendations are made that double-blind lineup testing should be used, that eyewitnesses should be forewarned that the culprit might not be present, that distractors should be selected based on the eyewitness's verbal description of the perpetrator, and that confidence should be assessed and recorded at the time of identification. The potential costs and benefits of these recommendations are discussed.
People are generally poor at detecting deceit when observing someone’s behaviour or listening to their speech. In this chapter I will discuss the major factors (pitfalls) that lead to failures in catching liars: the sixteen reasons I will present are clustered into three categories: (i) a lack of motivation to detect lies; (ii) difficulties associated with lie detection; and (iii) common errors made by lie detectors. Discussing pitfalls provides insight into how lie detectors can improve their performance (for example, by recognising common biases and avoiding common judgment errors). The second section of this chapter discusses 11 ways (opportunities) to improve lie detection skills. Within this section, I first provide five recommendations for avoiding common errors in detecting lies. Next, I discuss recent lie detection research that introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers. The recommendations are relevant in various settings, from the individual level (e.g., “Is my partner really working late?”) to the societal level (e.g., “Can we trust this suspect when he claims that he is not the serial rapist the police are searching for?”).
In this paper we argue that there is little need for more of the traditional deception detection research in which observers assess short video clips in which there are few (if any) cues to deception and truth. We argue that a change in direction is needed and that researchers should focus on the questions the interviewer needs to ask in order to elicit and enhance cues to deception. We discuss three strands of research into this new ‘interviewing to detect deception’ approach. We encourage practitioners to use the proposed techniques and encourage other researchers to join us in conducting more research in this area. We offer some guidelines for what researchers need to keep in mind when carrying out research in this new paradigm.
A new way of investigating cognition is proposed that combines naturalistic (in vivo) and experimental (in vitro) methods into a single approach. Investigating analogical reasoning by scientists ‘live’ at laboratory meetings (in vivo) we found that the types of analogies they use change with their goals. Unlike subjects in many cognitive ‘reminding’ experiments, scientists frequently used structural similarities in their analogies, as opposed to superficial similarities. By subsequently using the in vitro approach, we found that the use of structural information was associated with being asked to generate analogies and with the use of complex scenarios. Similar results are obtained in other areas of reasoning such as hypothesis testing and causal reasoning.