Dr. Coral Dando

Prof. Ray Bull

University of Leicester

Cjd28@le.ac.uk

Dr. Coral Dando

Prof. Ray Bull

University of Leicester

Cjd28@le.ac.uk

The Strategic Use of Information During Interviews with Suspects: An

Interviewer's Perspective

SUE Research SUE Research SUE enhanced the detection of deception

BUT Scenarios were straightforward Guilty or not guilty Small amounts of evidence – 3 Interviewee did not have to construct his own

deception No account of difficulty for interviewer in applied

settings

SUE enhanced the detection of deceptionBUT

Scenarios were straightforward Guilty or not guilty Small amounts of evidence – 3 Interviewee did not have to construct his own

deception No account of difficulty for interviewer in applied

settings

Questions ?Questions ?

SUE technique is mainly effective for pinpointing liars?

Protect the innocent? Complexity of the case material? Cognitive demands on the interviewer?

SUE technique is mainly effective for pinpointing liars?

Protect the innocent? Complexity of the case material? Cognitive demands on the interviewer?

Interviewer's PerspectiveInterviewer's Perspective Offence not yet committed or in progress Offence has been committed - No

compelling evidence Multiple items/clusters of information Combine to indicate suspicion

Offence not yet committed or in progress Offence has been committed - No

compelling evidence Multiple items/clusters of information Combine to indicate suspicion

D-Scent Research ProjectD-Scent Research Project

EPSRC funded - Develop techniques that combine technologies for geographical positioning, communication signal analysis with forensic psychology techniques for detecting deception during interviews with suspects

Counter terrorist agenda - Detecting deception during interviews

Suspicion of wrong doing - no strong evidence Complex data - interviewees something to hide

EPSRC funded - Develop techniques that combine technologies for geographical positioning, communication signal analysis with forensic psychology techniques for detecting deception during interviews with suspects

Counter terrorist agenda - Detecting deception during interviews

Suspicion of wrong doing - no strong evidence Complex data - interviewees something to hide

Groups of 4, individually Either a builder or a terrorist - Tasked with building

an Olympic stadium BUT terrorist agenda was to blow up the stadium while appearing to be a builder

Moved around a board completing various tasks e.g buying construction equipment & taking it to the building site etc.

Laptop to record moves and buy items, as required First person to complete task paid extra money

(motivation)

Groups of 4, individually Either a builder or a terrorist - Tasked with building

an Olympic stadium BUT terrorist agenda was to blow up the stadium while appearing to be a builder

Moved around a board completing various tasks e.g buying construction equipment & taking it to the building site etc.

Laptop to record moves and buy items, as required First person to complete task paid extra money

(motivation)

Cutting Corners Game

Phased game End of each phase investigator was able to see

what items had been purchased (but not by whom) Weigh 1 van Check the contents of 1 van Upon completion of game all completed a post

game questionnaire All interviewed

Phased game End of each phase investigator was able to see

what items had been purchased (but not by whom) Weigh 1 van Check the contents of 1 van Upon completion of game all completed a post

game questionnaire All interviewed

Interviewing SuspectsInterviewing Suspects

SUE from an interviewer's perspective

Minimise Cognitive load for the interviewer

Protect the innocent – something to hide

Maximise cognitive load - detect deceptive interviewee - complex data

SUE from an interviewer's perspective

Minimise Cognitive load for the interviewer

Protect the innocent – something to hide

Maximise cognitive load - detect deceptive interviewee - complex data

Interview ProcessInterview Process Conversational exchange Discover the truth Information gathering Military maneuver - verbal combat – gain

advantage

Conversational exchange Discover the truth Information gathering Military maneuver - verbal combat – gain

advantage

Military Strategy & TacticsMilitary Strategy & Tactics Strategy governs the

prelude to a battle while tactics control its execution.

Strategy - distribute and apply the means to fulfil the end

Large scale the big picture Tactics - smaller scale, the

individual elements

Strategy governs the prelude to a battle while tactics control its execution.

Strategy - distribute and apply the means to fulfil the end

Large scale the big picture Tactics - smaller scale, the

individual elements

Tactical ApproachTactical Approach

Individual - Treated each piece of evidence individually

More immediate?

Limit deceptive interviewee's options

An expedient toward gaining the desired outcome

Individual - Treated each piece of evidence individually

More immediate?

Limit deceptive interviewee's options

An expedient toward gaining the desired outcome

Strategic Approach Strategic Approach Global - Big picture

Evidence is not presented until the closing phases of an interview

More demanding for the interviewer

Advantages take longer to be realized

Interviewee is less constrained in responding - construct deceptive account

Global - Big picture

Evidence is not presented until the closing phases of an interview

More demanding for the interviewer

Advantages take longer to be realized

Interviewee is less constrained in responding - construct deceptive account

InterviewsInterviews

Early - (baseline/control) potentially incriminating evidence presented in the initial stages of the interview procedure, pre free account

Late- (Strategic) potentially incriminating evidence presented at the end of the interview procedure, post questioning phase (Hartwig et al., 2006)

Gradual - (Tactical) Drip feed presentation of potentially incriminating evidence, post free account, during the questioning phase

Early - (baseline/control) potentially incriminating evidence presented in the initial stages of the interview procedure, pre free account

Late- (Strategic) potentially incriminating evidence presented at the end of the interview procedure, post questioning phase (Hartwig et al., 2006)

Gradual - (Tactical) Drip feed presentation of potentially incriminating evidence, post free account, during the questioning phase

Four Phase InterviewFour Phase Interview

Closure

Explain Explain Explain

Early Tactical Strategic

Closure Closure

Disclosure of evidence & Free Account

Free Account Free Account

Questions & Challenge

Questions (one at a time) Gradual/incremental disclosure

of evidence & Challenge - one by one

Questions (one after another) Disclosure of evidence &

challenge

Post InterviewPost Interview

Qualitative and quantitative data - perceptions Cognitive effort Deceptiveness Motivation If/what verbal strategies employed If/what behavioural strategies employed

Qualitative and quantitative data - perceptions Cognitive effort Deceptiveness Motivation If/what verbal strategies employed If/what behavioural strategies employed

Results Results Terrorists & builders both equally and highly

motivated Cognitive Effort - Builders and terrorists found

both the strategic & tactical more demanding than the Early

Terrorists -tactical was the most cognitively demanding

Terrorists & builders both equally and highly motivated

Cognitive Effort - Builders and terrorists found both the strategic & tactical more demanding than the Early

Terrorists -tactical was the most cognitively demanding

Deceptiveness & TruthfulnessDeceptiveness & Truthfulness

Terrorists more deceptive than builders per se

Terrorists more deceptive - early interviews than in the strategic & tactical

Terrorists more deceptive in strategic than the tactical interviews

Terrorists more deceptive than builders per se

Terrorists more deceptive - early interviews than in the strategic & tactical

Terrorists more deceptive in strategic than the tactical interviews

Verbal and Behavioural Strategies Prior to Interview

Verbal and Behavioural Strategies Prior to Interview

Of the terrorist (deceptive) participants 87.1% reported having a verbal strategy in contrast Just 56.2% of the builder (truthful) participants

83.9% terrorists and 55.1% builders reported having a behavioural strategy.

Terrorist participants reported having both a verbal and behavioural strategy more often than builder participants

Of the terrorist (deceptive) participants 87.1% reported having a verbal strategy in contrast Just 56.2% of the builder (truthful) participants

83.9% terrorists and 55.1% builders reported having a behavioural strategy.

Terrorist participants reported having both a verbal and behavioural strategy more often than builder participants

Verbal StrategiesVerbal Strategies

Strategy Frequency Percentage

Terrorist (deceivers)

Pretend to forget/say I do not know/pretend to be confused, uncertain, & stupid 23 42.6

Say as little as possible/only document legitimate moves 17 31.5

Just Lie/keep denying terrorist involvement 12 22.2

Confuse the interviewer 7 13

Take time/think before speaking 4 7.4

Explain logically/make sure story makes sense 4 7.4

Explain in detail/give a detailed explanation/embellish details 4 7.4

Builder (truth tellers)

Tell the truth 36 72.0

Explain in detail 7 14.0

Explain what happened in a straightforward and logical way 4 8.0

Behavioural StrategiesBehavioural Strategies

Strategy Frequency Percentage

Terrorist (deceivers)

Be relaxed/act naturally 15 28.9

Keep eye contact/look at the interviewer 13 25.1

Do not fidget 5 9.6

Do not fiddle with hands or fingers 5 9.6

Smile 3 5.8

Be talkative/talk a lot 3 5.8

Be friendly 2 3.8

Act confused 2 3.8

Control breathing 2 3.8

Don’t smile 2 3.8

Builder (truth tellers)

Be relaxed/act naturally 27 55.1

Keep eye contact 11 22.4

Do not sit too still 7 14.3

Do not fidget 4 8.2

Post Interview Veracity Judgments

Post Interview Veracity Judgments

160 Interviews 10 police officers & 10 non police officers

(tactical & strategic trained) Each viewed 30 interviews (10 from each

condition: 5 builders/5 terrorists Veracity judgment

160 Interviews 10 police officers & 10 non police officers

(tactical & strategic trained) Each viewed 30 interviews (10 from each

condition: 5 builders/5 terrorists Veracity judgment

Terrorist (deceptive)Terrorist (deceptive)

Lay person 54% Strategic – 53% Tactical - 56% Early – 52%

Lay person 54% Strategic – 53% Tactical - 56% Early – 52%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Strategic Tactical Early

Police 66% correct Strategic – 66% Tactical - 76% Early – 55%

Police 66% correct Strategic – 66% Tactical - 76% Early – 55%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Strategic Tactical Early

Builders (truth tellers)Builders (truth tellers)

Lay people 69 % correct Strategic 66 % Tactical 69 % Early 63 %

Lay people 69 % correct Strategic 66 % Tactical 69 % Early 63 %

Police 68 % correct Strategic 57 % Tactical 72 % Early 56 %

Police 68 % correct Strategic 57 % Tactical 72 % Early 56 %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Strategic Tactical Early

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Strategic Tactical Early

Where Are We Now?Where Are We Now?

Non verbal behaviour e.g. Illustrators Hand/finger movements Self adaptors

Verbal behaviour & verbal content e.g. Statement evidence (in)consistency Response latency

Non verbal behaviour e.g. Illustrators Hand/finger movements Self adaptors

Verbal behaviour & verbal content e.g. Statement evidence (in)consistency Response latency

Questions ? Questions ?