A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

Jacob De Rosa; Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman; Adam Blythe; Glynis Bogaard; Ashley Hally; Kevin Colwell

doi:10.1002/jip.1519

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

Jacob De Rosa, Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman, Adam Blythe, Glynis Bogaard, Ashley Hally, Kevin Colwell^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

138 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This study compared the Stepwise Interview, Cognitive Interview, and Reality Interview in detecting deception with inmates. The dependent measures were the amount of unique details provided during the free narrative and mnemonics and the number of words provided during the free narrative and mnemonics of each interview. The Stepwise Interview generated 58.3% accuracy, the Cognitive Interview generated 70.0% accuracy, and the Reality Interview generated 93.3% accuracy. The different tasks of these interviews increased the differences between honest and deceptive statements and therefore, increased the accuracy in detection of deception. Differential recall enhancement is used to explain the findings.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	44-58
Number of pages	15
Journal	Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling
Volume	16
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1519
Publication status	Published - Jan 2019

Keywords

credibility assessment
detecting deception
investigative interviewing
POLICE OFFICERS
COGNITIVE LOAD
STRATEGIC USE
ELICIT CUES
EFFICACY
ABILITY
GUILTY
DECEIT
LIES
ACID

Access to Document

10.1002/jip.1519

Full TextFinal published version, 191 KBLicence: Taverne

Cite this

@article{ff2fb2c0231948318944ed7172e0b504,

title = "A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception",

abstract = "This study compared the Stepwise Interview, Cognitive Interview, and Reality Interview in detecting deception with inmates. The dependent measures were the amount of unique details provided during the free narrative and mnemonics and the number of words provided during the free narrative and mnemonics of each interview. The Stepwise Interview generated 58.3% accuracy, the Cognitive Interview generated 70.0% accuracy, and the Reality Interview generated 93.3% accuracy. The different tasks of these interviews increased the differences between honest and deceptive statements and therefore, increased the accuracy in detection of deception. Differential recall enhancement is used to explain the findings.",

keywords = "credibility assessment, detecting deception, investigative interviewing, POLICE OFFICERS, COGNITIVE LOAD, STRATEGIC USE, ELICIT CUES, EFFICACY, ABILITY, GUILTY, DECEIT, LIES, ACID",

author = "{De Rosa}, Jacob and Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman and Adam Blythe and Glynis Bogaard and Ashley Hally and Kevin Colwell",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",

year = "2019",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1002/jip.1519",

language = "English",

volume = "16",

pages = "44--58",

journal = "Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling",

issn = "1544-4759",

publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Inc.",

number = "1",

}

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception. / De Rosa, Jacob; Hiscock-Anisman, Cheryl; Blythe, Adam et al.
In: Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Vol. 16, No. 1, 01.2019, p. 44-58.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

AU - De Rosa, Jacob

AU - Hiscock-Anisman, Cheryl

AU - Blythe, Adam

AU - Bogaard, Glynis

AU - Hally, Ashley

AU - Colwell, Kevin

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - This study compared the Stepwise Interview, Cognitive Interview, and Reality Interview in detecting deception with inmates. The dependent measures were the amount of unique details provided during the free narrative and mnemonics and the number of words provided during the free narrative and mnemonics of each interview. The Stepwise Interview generated 58.3% accuracy, the Cognitive Interview generated 70.0% accuracy, and the Reality Interview generated 93.3% accuracy. The different tasks of these interviews increased the differences between honest and deceptive statements and therefore, increased the accuracy in detection of deception. Differential recall enhancement is used to explain the findings.

AB - This study compared the Stepwise Interview, Cognitive Interview, and Reality Interview in detecting deception with inmates. The dependent measures were the amount of unique details provided during the free narrative and mnemonics and the number of words provided during the free narrative and mnemonics of each interview. The Stepwise Interview generated 58.3% accuracy, the Cognitive Interview generated 70.0% accuracy, and the Reality Interview generated 93.3% accuracy. The different tasks of these interviews increased the differences between honest and deceptive statements and therefore, increased the accuracy in detection of deception. Differential recall enhancement is used to explain the findings.

KW - credibility assessment

KW - detecting deception

KW - investigative interviewing

KW - POLICE OFFICERS

KW - COGNITIVE LOAD

KW - STRATEGIC USE

KW - ELICIT CUES

KW - EFFICACY

KW - ABILITY

KW - GUILTY

KW - DECEIT

KW - LIES

KW - ACID

U2 - 10.1002/jip.1519

DO - 10.1002/jip.1519

M3 - Article

SN - 1544-4759

VL - 16

SP - 44

EP - 58

JO - Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling

JF - Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling

IS - 1

ER -

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this