number and accuracy of activities reported, including the level of precision and
the durations estimates provided for the crime in question. First, deceptive
criminal suspects use decreasingly fewer words and fi ne - grain details over time.
Given that criminal investigations likely include repeated interviews of criminal
296
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
suspects over time, it would be incumbent upon investigators to pay close
attention to this indicator during an investigation. Ideally, recorded interviews
would be coded for the number of details and words used by a criminal suspect.
Practically speaking, however, limitations on time and resources may preclude
this possibility. A reasonable alternative would have investigators reviewing
recorded interviews collectively, making relative comparisons and agreed upon
judgements about the length of suspect statements and accounts over repeated
interrogations.
Second, deceptive criminal suspects only underestimate the length of time
that occurs during the actual criminal event relative to their duration estima-
tions for other activities surrounding the critical event. This is a compelling
forensic indicator which can be assessed with relative ease in actual interroga-
tion settings and does not depend on repeated interrogations. Investigators
would simply need to compare the suspect
’ s duration estimates with the
victim(s) and other witnesses, particularly given that the study demonstrated
that truthful individuals do not under - or overestimate any of the activities.
Of course, this strategy assumes that both the victim(s) and other witnesses
are themselves being truthful. This is a separate issue, and one that cannot be
addressed by this study.
As with many psychological studies investigating behaviour in forensic set-
tings, limitations of the current study centre on its ecologically validity. For
both ethical and practical reasons, it is impossible to create an actual criminal
situation in order to experimentally study deceptive behaviour. Given that key
features of an actual, high - stakes criminal act were absent from the current
study, in particular, the real - world consequences of getting caught or of suc-
ceeding and the accompanying emotions, such as guilt, fear or elation, one
has to question the degree to which the current fi ndings generalize to actual
criminal suspects. Lying about a fake $25,000 bank note is not the same as
lying about participating in an armed robbery. A related issue concerns the
artifi ciality of role - playing. In the current study, we asked both the participants
and the research assistants to assume very specifi c roles and then play them
out (witness/criminal suspect and police offi cer, respectively). There is a con-
trived nature to this sort of role - playing that is necessarily absent from actual
settings in which people are witnesses, suspects or police offi cers, arriving in
these roles through a highly complex interaction of events, decisions and cir-
cumstance. Nevertheless, it is likely that there are features that are inherent to
the deceptive act itself (regardless of what one is lying about or why) that are
relatively robust across both real - world and artifi cial settings.
Future research should continue to investigate the effects of repeated recall
over time on deceptive and truthful accounts. In addition, future studies
should add to the research on the effects of deception and repeated recall over
time on duration estimates. This is an understudied and potentially signifi cant
indicator which may eventually demonstrate high predictive value in investiga-
tive interviews.
Truthfulness in Witnesses’ and Suspects’ Reports
297
Conclusion
Both laboratory - bound and fi eld experiments on eyewitness behaviour may be
conducted to explore the differences between honest and deceptive eyewit-
nesses, and honest and deceptive suspects. Common
- sense or individuals
’
intuitions of how well they would perform as potential honest or deceptive
eyewitnesses to a violent or serious crime are not predictive of actual eyewit-
ness behaviours. Judgements of honesty/deceptive behaviours, as well as the
accuracy/inaccuracy of eyewitnesses by highly educated lay - persons, are not
signifi cantly different from what would be found by chance. However, there
are a number of subjective beliefs that are consistently held by observers
regarding the behaviours of honest and deceptive eyewitnesses. Finally, it
appears that duration estimations can be added to the list of indicators that
may differentiate between truthful and deceptive behaviours.
References
Anolli , L. & Ciceri , R. ( 1997 ). The voice of deception: Vocal strategies of na ï ve and
able liars . Journal of Nonverbal Behavior , 21 , 259 − 284 .
Baddeley , A. ( 1990 ). Human memory: Theory and practice . Hove : Lawrence Erlbaum .
Benton , T. R. , Ross , D. F. , Bradshaw , E. , Thomas , W. N. & Bradshaw , G. S. ( 2006 ).
Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law
enforcement to eyewitness experts . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 20 , 115 − 129 .
Carmichael , A. R. ( 1997 ). Duration estimates: A potentially useful tool for cognitive
ergonomists . In D. Harris (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics.
Volume2: Job design and product design (pp. 267 − 273 ). Aldershot : Ashgate .
Desmarais , S. & Yarmey , A. D. ( 2004 ). Judgements of deception and accuracy of
performance in eyewitness testimony
.
Canadian Journal of Police
& Security
Services , 2 , 13 − 22 .
deTurck , M. A. & Miller , G. R. ( 1985 ). Deception and arousal: Isolating the behav-
ioral correlates of deception . Human Communication Research , 12 , 181 − 201 .
Ekman , P. ( 2001 ). Telling lies . New York : Norton .
Goldsmith , M. , Koriat , A. & Weinberg - Eliezer , A. ( 2002 ). Strategic regulation of grain
size memory reporting . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 131 , 73 − 95 .
Granhag , P. A. & Str ö mwall , L. A. ( 2000 ). Repeated interrogations: Stretching the
deception detection paradigm . Expert Evidence , 7 , 163 − 174 .
Granhag , P. A. & Vrij , A. ( 2005 ). Deception detection . In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams
(Eds.),
Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp.
43 − 92 ).
New York
:
Guilford Press .
Gudjonsson , G. H. ( 1992 ). The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony .
Chichester : Wiley .
Hosch , H. M. , Beck , E. L. & McIntyre , P. ( 1980 ). Infl uence of expert testimony
regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions . Law and Human Behavior , 4 ,
287 − 296 .
298
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
Jackson , J. L. , Michon , J. A. & Melchior , K. ( 1993 ). Time meets crime: A search for
a common theoretical framework . Psychologica Belgica , 33 , 297 − 309 .
Johnson , M. K. & Raye , C. L. ( 1981 ). Reality monitoring . Psychological Review , 88 ,
<
br /> 67 − 85 .
Johnson , M. K. & Sherman , S. J. ( 1990 ). Constructing and reconstructing the past
and the future in the present
. In
E. T.
Higgins & R. M.
Sorrentino (Eds.).
Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behaviour (vol. 2 ),
(pp. 482 − 526 ). New York : Guilford .
Kassin , S. M. ( 1979 ). Unpublished study. Cited in G. L. Wells (1984). How adequate
is human intuition for judging eyewitness testimony? In G. L. Wells and E. F.
Loftus (Eds.). Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 256 − 272 ). New
York : Cambridge University Press .
Kassin , S. M. , Tubb , V. A. , Hosch , H. M. & Memon , A. ( 2001 ). On the ‘ general
acceptance ’ of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts
.
American Psychologist , 56 , 405 − 416 .
Kebbell , M. R. & Wagstaff , G. ( 1997 ). Why do the police interview eyewitnesses?
Interview objectives and the evaluation of eyewitness performance
.
Journal of
Psychology , 13 , 595 − 601 .
K ö hnken , G. ( 1987 ). Training police to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does
it work? Social Behavior , 2 , 1 − 17 .
Leippe , M. R. , Wells , G. L. & Ostrom , T. M. ( 1978 ). Crime seriousness as a deter-
minant of accuracy in eyewitness identifi cation . Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 ,
345 − 351 .
Lindsay , R. C. L. , Wells , G. L. & Rumpel , C. ( 1981 ). Can people detect eyewitness
identifi cation accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology ,
66 , 79 − 89 .
Loftus , E. F. ( 1979 ). Eyewitness testimony . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .
Loftus , E. F. , Schooler , J. W. , Boone , S. M. & Kline , D. ( 1987 ). Time went by so
slowly: Overestimation of event duration by males and females . Applied Cognitive
Psychology , 1 , 3 − 13 .
Miller , G. R. & Stiff , J. B. ( 1993 ). Deceptive communication . Newbury Park, CA :
Sage .
Parliament ,
L. & Yarmey ,
A. D.
(
2002 ).
Deception in eyewitness identifi cation .
Criminal Justice and Behavior , 29 , 734 − 746 .
Pedersen , A. C. I. & Wright , D. B. ( 2002 ). Do differences in event descriptions cause
differences in duration estimates? Applied Cognitive Psychology , 16 , 769 – 783 .
Steele , L. ( 2004 ). Trying identifi cation cases: An outline for raising eyewitness ID
issues . Champion , 8 − 18 November. http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/9973f3
ec244ba99685256f6a00558f39?OpenDocument
Str ö mwall , L. & Granhag , P. ( 2003 ). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs
of police offi cers, prosecutors and judges . Psychology, Crime & Law , 9 , 19 − 36 .
Undeutsch , U. ( 1982 ). Statement reality analysis . In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing
the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials (pp. 27 − 56 ). Stockholm : Norstedt
& Somers .
Vierordt , K. ( 1868 ). Der Zeitsinn nach Versuchen . [Empirical studies of time experi-
ence], T ü bingen : H. Laupp .
Vrij , A. ( 2000 ). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications
for professional practice . Chichester : Wiley .
Truthfulness in Witnesses’ and Suspects’ Reports
299
Vrij , A. & Easton , S. ( 2002 ). Fact or fi ction? Verbal and behavioural clues to detect
deception . Medico - Legal Journal , 70 , 29 − 37 .
Watkins , K. & Turtle , J. ( 2003 ). Investigative interviewing and the detection of decep-
tion . Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services , 1 , 115 − 123 .
Wells , G. L. , Lindsay , R. C. L. & Ferguson , T. J. ( 1979 ). Accuracy, confi dence, and
juror perceptions in eyewitness identifi cation . Journal of Applied Psychology , 64 ,
440 − 448 .
Wells , G. L. , Lindsay , R. C. L. & Tousignant , J. P. ( 1980 ). Effects of expert psycho-
logical advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testi-
mony . Law and Human Behavior , 4 , 275 − 286 .
Yarmey , A. D. ( 1990 ). Accuracy and confi dence in duration estimates following ques-
tions containing marked and unmarked modifi ers .
Journal of Applied Social
Psychology , 20 , 1139 – 1149 .
Yarmey , A. D. ( 2000 ). Retrospective duration estimations for variant and invariant
events in fi eld situations . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 14 , 45 – 57 .
Yarmey , A. D. ( 2003 ). Eyewitness testimony and deception: A fi eld experiment . Paper
presented at the International Conference on Psychology and Law, Edinburgh,
July.
Yarmey , A. D. & Yarmey , M. J. ( 1997 ). Eyewitness recall and duration estimates in
fi eld settings . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 27 , 330 – 344 .
Yarmey , A. D. , Wells , E. C. & Yuval , L. ( 2006 ). Deceptive suspects ’ event recall and
duration estimates across repeated interviews
.
Canadian Journal of Police
&
Security Services , 4 , 200 − 210 .
Yarmey , D. ( 2004 ). Effects of deception on eyewitness reports . Canadian Journal of
Police & Security Services , 2 , 199 − 207 .
Yuval , L. N. ( 2003 ). Uncovering the behavioural correlates of the deceptive eyewitness .
Unpublished master ’ s thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario.
Zaparniuk , J. , Yuille , J. C. & Taylor , S. ( 1995 ). Assessing the credibility of true and
false statements . International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , 18 , 343 − 352 .
Zuckerman , M. & Driver , R. ( 1985 ). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of
deception . In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal communication:
An integrated perspective (pp. 129 − 147 ). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .
Chapter Seventeen
Evaluating Truthfulness: Detecting
Truths and Lies in Forensic Contexts
Barry S. Cooper
The Forensic Alliance
Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission
Hugues Herv é
The Forensic Alliance
and
John C. Yuille
The Forensic Alliance
University of British Columbia
Introduction
As Nietzsche (1967) asserted, lying is a fact of life. Indeed, on average, we all
lie about three times a day and to about one third of the people with whom
we interact (Ekman, 1992 ; DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer & Epstein, 1996 ;
Ford, 2006 ). Most lies are well intended, such as an omission (a type of lie)
to spare someone ’ s feelings or a fabrication (another type of lie) to make
someone feel good (Ekman, 1992 ; Ford, 2006 ). Such lies could be viewed as
altruistic in nature and as having evolved to facilitate socialization (Nietzsche,
1967 ). Less commonly, lies are markedly more self
- serving (e.g., for self
-
protection), if not downright manipulative and/or malevolent (e.g., to avoid
punishment and/or gain an underserved reward; Cooper & Yuille, 2006 ).
Although less common in the general population, selfi sh lies, which could be
viewed as a product of natural selection, are relatively prominent in forensic
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions
Edited by Ray Bull, Tim Valentine and Tom Williamson
© 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
302
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
contexts (Spidel, Herv é , Greaves, Cooper & Hare, 2003 ), where their impact
can have disastrous effects (e.g., lead to the guilty being freed or the innocent
jailed). Not surprisingly, lying in general and lying for selfi sh reasons in par-
ticular have received a great deal of scholarly attention throughout history.
The goal of the present chapter is to provide an overview of the research on
skill - based, as opposed to technology - driven, methods for evaluating truthful-
ness (i.e., differentiating truths from lies via verbal and nonverbal channels)
and to introduce an evidenced - based approach that promotes the state of the
art in this area. First, the complex nature of distinguishing truths from lies is
discussed, followed by a brief review of the extant approaches in this area. Next
is an overview of the research on the topic, including its limitations. The focus
then turns to a review of the research on individuals ’ abilities to distinguish
truths from lies and a discussion of barriers that often prevent people from
being able to reliably evaluate truthfulness. Following, evidenced - based com-
ponents involved in improving individuals ’ capacity to distinguish truths from
lies are presented. Finally, an approach to evaluating truthfulness is introduced,
including its strengths and limitations. It is hoped that the chapter will provide
a foundation from which to improve the capacity to reliably distinguish truths
from lies.
The complex nature of evaluating truthfulness
Lying and its evaluation are an inherently complex topic. For example, what
constitutes a lie depends largely on one ’ s motivation, which itself refl ects, at
least in part, the triggering event and the context in which the lie occurs.
Clearly, lying about not liking your partner ’ s new hairstyle is emotionally less
intense and cognitively taxing than lying to the police about your involvement
in a murder (i.e., different triggering events). Similarly, a criminal lying to
peers in a bar about some misdeed is likely to feel very different about the
same lie committed in a court of law (i.e., different contexts). In other words,
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions Page 57
