Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers

Previous research has shown that inconsistencies across repeated interviews do not indicate deception because liars deliberately tend to repeat the same story. However, when a strategic interview approach that makes it difficult for liars to use the repeat strategy is used, both consistency and evas...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jaume Masip, Carmen Martínez, Iris Blandón-Gitlin, Nuria Sánchez, Carmen Herrero, Izaskun Ibabe
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-01-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02207/full
id doaj-7f2e0658e64d464db8813596f41d658e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7f2e0658e64d464db8813596f41d658e2020-11-24T22:28:54ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782018-01-01810.3389/fpsyg.2017.02207311955Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police OfficersJaume Masip0Carmen Martínez1Iris Blandón-Gitlin2Nuria Sánchez3Carmen Herrero4Izaskun Ibabe5Department of Social Psychology and Anthropology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SpainDepartment of Social Psychology and Anthropology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SpainDepartment of Psychology, California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, United StatesDepartment of Social Psychology and Anthropology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SpainDepartment of Social Psychology and Anthropology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SpainDepartment of Social Psychology and Methodology of the Behavioral Sciences, University of the Basque Country, San Sebastián, SpainPrevious research has shown that inconsistencies across repeated interviews do not indicate deception because liars deliberately tend to repeat the same story. However, when a strategic interview approach that makes it difficult for liars to use the repeat strategy is used, both consistency and evasive answers differ significantly between truth tellers and liars, and statistical software (binary logistic regression analyses) can reach high classification rates (Masip et al., 2016b). Yet, if the interview procedure is to be used in applied settings the decision process will be made by humans, not statistical software. To address this issue, in the current study, 475 college students (Experiment 1) and 142 police officers (Experiment 2) were instructed to code and use consistency, evasive answers, or a combination or both before judging the veracity of Masip et al.'s (2016b) interview transcripts. Accuracy rates were high (60% to over 90%). Evasive answers yielded higher rates than consistency, and the combination of both these cues produced the highest accuracy rates in identifying both truthful and deceptive statements. Uninstructed participants performed fairly well (around 75% accuracy), apparently because they spontaneously used consistency and evasive answers. The pattern of results was the same among students, all officers, and veteran officers only, and shows that inconsistencies between interviews and evasive answers reveal deception when a strategic interview approach that hinders the repeat strategy is used.http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02207/fulldeceptionlie detectionconsistencyinterviewingpolicedeception cues
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jaume Masip
Carmen Martínez
Iris Blandón-Gitlin
Nuria Sánchez
Carmen Herrero
Izaskun Ibabe
spellingShingle Jaume Masip
Carmen Martínez
Iris Blandón-Gitlin
Nuria Sánchez
Carmen Herrero
Izaskun Ibabe
Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers
Frontiers in Psychology
deception
lie detection
consistency
interviewing
police
deception cues
author_facet Jaume Masip
Carmen Martínez
Iris Blandón-Gitlin
Nuria Sánchez
Carmen Herrero
Izaskun Ibabe
author_sort Jaume Masip
title Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers
title_short Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers
title_full Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers
title_fullStr Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers
title_full_unstemmed Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers
title_sort learning to detect deception from evasive answers and inconsistencies across repeated interviews: a study with lay respondents and police officers
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2018-01-01
description Previous research has shown that inconsistencies across repeated interviews do not indicate deception because liars deliberately tend to repeat the same story. However, when a strategic interview approach that makes it difficult for liars to use the repeat strategy is used, both consistency and evasive answers differ significantly between truth tellers and liars, and statistical software (binary logistic regression analyses) can reach high classification rates (Masip et al., 2016b). Yet, if the interview procedure is to be used in applied settings the decision process will be made by humans, not statistical software. To address this issue, in the current study, 475 college students (Experiment 1) and 142 police officers (Experiment 2) were instructed to code and use consistency, evasive answers, or a combination or both before judging the veracity of Masip et al.'s (2016b) interview transcripts. Accuracy rates were high (60% to over 90%). Evasive answers yielded higher rates than consistency, and the combination of both these cues produced the highest accuracy rates in identifying both truthful and deceptive statements. Uninstructed participants performed fairly well (around 75% accuracy), apparently because they spontaneously used consistency and evasive answers. The pattern of results was the same among students, all officers, and veteran officers only, and shows that inconsistencies between interviews and evasive answers reveal deception when a strategic interview approach that hinders the repeat strategy is used.
topic deception
lie detection
consistency
interviewing
police
deception cues
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02207/full
work_keys_str_mv AT jaumemasip learningtodetectdeceptionfromevasiveanswersandinconsistenciesacrossrepeatedinterviewsastudywithlayrespondentsandpoliceofficers
AT carmenmartinez learningtodetectdeceptionfromevasiveanswersandinconsistenciesacrossrepeatedinterviewsastudywithlayrespondentsandpoliceofficers
AT irisblandongitlin learningtodetectdeceptionfromevasiveanswersandinconsistenciesacrossrepeatedinterviewsastudywithlayrespondentsandpoliceofficers
AT nuriasanchez learningtodetectdeceptionfromevasiveanswersandinconsistenciesacrossrepeatedinterviewsastudywithlayrespondentsandpoliceofficers
AT carmenherrero learningtodetectdeceptionfromevasiveanswersandinconsistenciesacrossrepeatedinterviewsastudywithlayrespondentsandpoliceofficers
AT izaskunibabe learningtodetectdeceptionfromevasiveanswersandinconsistenciesacrossrepeatedinterviewsastudywithlayrespondentsandpoliceofficers
_version_ 1725745739162714112