Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 500, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Law Hum Behav. 2011 Dec;35(6):512-22. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9258-9.
This article examined how to elicit cues to deception when a suspect is asked both about his/her intentions and his/her corresponding past planning, and when the investigator holds evidence on the suspect's planning activities. In a new experimental set-up accommodating the main characteristics of intent, participants (N = 120) either planned a criminal or a non-criminal act. They were intercepted before completing the planned act. Each participant was interviewed in accordance with one of three interview techniques: Early Evidence disclosure or one of two versions of the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique. All the interviews were transcribed and scored for consistency. As predicted, the liars were perceived as having a higher degree of inconsistency for two of the three relevant comparisons (Statement on Planning-Evidence on Planning; Statement on Intent-Evidence on Planning). Furthermore, using the evidence strategically resulted in differences between liars and truth tellers being magnified, as predicted. This article advances previous findings in showing that by interviewing strategically with respect to the evidence, it is possible to elicit reliable cues to deception when a suspect is asked about intentions and corresponding planning activities.
本文探讨了在询问嫌疑人意图及其相应的过去计划,并且调查员持有嫌疑人计划活动证据时,如何引出欺骗线索。在一个新的实验设置中,适应了意图的主要特征,参与者(N=120)计划了犯罪或非犯罪行为。他们在完成计划的行为之前被拦截。根据三种访谈技术之一,对每个参与者进行访谈:早期证据披露或两种策略性使用证据(SUE)技术之一。所有的访谈都被转录并进行一致性评分。正如预测的那样,对于三个相关比较中的两个(计划陈述-计划证据;意图陈述-计划证据),说谎者被认为具有更高程度的不一致性。此外,正如预测的那样,策略性地使用证据导致说谎者和说实话者之间的差异放大。本文在前人的研究基础上进一步发现,通过有策略地根据证据进行访谈,可以在询问嫌疑人意图及其相应计划活动时引出可靠的欺骗线索。