Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDando, Coral J.
dc.contributor.authorBull, Ray
dc.contributor.authorOrmerod, Thomas C.
dc.contributor.authorSandham, Alexandra L.
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-20T15:01:30Z
dc.date.available2017-07-20T15:01:30Z
dc.date.issued2013-04-20
dc.identifier.citationDando, C. J. et al (2015) 'Helping to sort the liars from the truth-tellers: The gradual revelation of information during investigative interviews', Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20 (1):114en
dc.identifier.issn13553259
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/lcrp.12016
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/621768
dc.description.abstractResearch examining detection of verbal deception reveals that lay observers generally perform at chance. Yet, in the criminal justice system, laypersons that have not undergone specialist investigative training are frequently called upon to make veracity judgements (e.g., solicitors; magistrates; juries). We sought to improve performance by manipulating the timing of information revelation during investigative interviews. A total of 151 participants played an interactive computer game as either a truth-teller or a deceiver, and were interviewed afterwards. Game information known to the interviewer was revealed either early, at the end of the interview, or gradually throughout. Subsequently, 30 laypersons individually viewed a random selection of interviews (five deceivers and five truth-tellers from each condition), and made veracity and confidence judgements. Veracity judgements were most accurate in the gradual condition, p < .001, η2 = .97 (above chance), and observers were more confident in those judgements, p < .001, η2 = .99. Deceptive interviewees reported the gradual interviews to be the most cognitively demanding, p < .001; η2 = .24. Our findings suggest that the detection of verbal deception by non-expert observers can be enhanced by employing interview techniques that maximize deceivers' cognitive load, while allowing truth-tellers the opportunity to respond to evidence incrementally.
dc.description.sponsorshipEPSRCen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWileyen
dc.relation.urlhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/lcrp.12016en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Legal and Criminological Psychologyen
dc.subjectDeceptionen
dc.subjectGradual disclosureen
dc.subjectSuspectsen
dc.subjectPolice interviewingen
dc.titleHelping to sort the liars from the truth-tellers: The gradual revelation of information during investigative interviewsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Wolverhamptonen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen
dc.contributor.departmentLancaster Universityen
dc.identifier.journalLegal and Criminological Psychologyen
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Psychology; University of Wolverhampton; UK
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Law and Criminology; Derby University; UK
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Psychology; Lancaster University; UK
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Psychology; Lancaster University; UK
html.description.abstractResearch examining detection of verbal deception reveals that lay observers generally perform at chance. Yet, in the criminal justice system, laypersons that have not undergone specialist investigative training are frequently called upon to make veracity judgements (e.g., solicitors; magistrates; juries). We sought to improve performance by manipulating the timing of information revelation during investigative interviews. A total of 151 participants played an interactive computer game as either a truth-teller or a deceiver, and were interviewed afterwards. Game information known to the interviewer was revealed either early, at the end of the interview, or gradually throughout. Subsequently, 30 laypersons individually viewed a random selection of interviews (five deceivers and five truth-tellers from each condition), and made veracity and confidence judgements. Veracity judgements were most accurate in the gradual condition, p < .001, η2 = .97 (above chance), and observers were more confident in those judgements, p < .001, η2 = .99. Deceptive interviewees reported the gradual interviews to be the most cognitively demanding, p < .001; η2 = .24. Our findings suggest that the detection of verbal deception by non-expert observers can be enhanced by employing interview techniques that maximize deceivers' cognitive load, while allowing truth-tellers the opportunity to respond to evidence incrementally.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record