Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 1 (2012) 122–123
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jarmac
Commentary
A positive, collaborative, and theoretically-based approach to improving
deception detection
Jacqueline R. Evans a,∗ , Kate A. Houston b , Christian A. Meissner b
a
b
University of Texas at Tyler, Department of Psychology and Counseling, Tyler, TX 75799, United States
University of Texas at El Paso, Department of Psychology, El Paso, TX 79968, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 March 2012
Received in revised form 15 April 2012
Accepted 16 April 2012
Available online 28 April 2012
In recent years Aldert Vrij, Pär Anders Granhag, and their colleagues have contributed significantly to our understanding of
the psychology of interviewing and deception detection (e.g., Vrij,
2008; Vrij, Granhag, & Porter 2010). While much of the prior literature is grounded in the premise that anxiety is key to discriminating
truths and lies, the approach that Vrij and Granhag have taken
considers the cognitive resources and representational capabilities
required for deceit (but not truth-telling). In the current issue, the
authors suggest that it is time for other researchers to follow their
lead in moving away from paradigms that focus on emotion and
instead pursue the more promising area of interviewing to detect
deception. We support the suggestions offered by Vrij and Granhag
(2012) for several reasons.
First, we believe it is critical that researchers maintain a positive, collaborative perspective that seeks to improve the practice
of interviewing and credibility assessment. While the popularity
of studying errors in human performance has grown over the past
few decades, ultimately the challenge for scholars is to advance our
conceptualization of a phenomenon in ways that lead to developing
effective interventions that might enhance performance. Further,
our applied science requires that we not isolate ourselves from productive conversations and collaborations with practitioners – such
interactions are critical to enhancing the legitimacy of our findings and ensuring the consideration of important contextual factors
that may moderate the effectiveness of our interventions. We have
seen a move in this direction within the eyewitness domain (see
Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999; Wells
et al., 1998), and we have argued for a similar approach in the study
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 903 566 7140.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.R. Evans).
of interrogations (Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman,
2010; Meissner, Hartwig, & Russano, 2010).
Second, the approach to interviewing and credibility assessment
that Vrij and Granhag (2012) have taken is well grounded in psychological theory. We have argued elsewhere for the importance
of using theory to guide application in areas such as eyewitness
memory (Lane & Meissner, 2008) and interrogations (Meissner,
Russano, & Narchet, 2010; Narchet, Meissner, & Russano, 2011).
The work of Vrij and Granhag leverages a complex understanding
of human memory and psychosocial processes that is translated in
a strategic manner to effectively discriminate between truths and
lies. While further research is certainly warranted to fully explicate a psychological model of credibility assessment, the authors
have taken important first and even second steps in developing
effective tools to improve the detection of diagnostic cues to deception.
Finally, the potential effectiveness of interviewing methods that
improve credibility assessment has been replicated by work in our
own laboratory examining the diagnostic value of certain interrogative approaches (see Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010).
As noted by Vrij and Granhag (2012), research has demonstrated
that information-gathering approaches to interrogation yield more
diagnostic confession evidence when compared with accusatorial approaches (Meissner, Redlich, Bhatt, & Brandon, in press).
Accusatorial methods are grounded in theories of deception that
suggest distinctions in the emotional reaction of liars versus truthtellers. In contrast, information-gathering approaches are premised
on the thesis that veracity can be distinguished via the cognitive
processes that influence the monitoring and recall of information.
Our recent work suggests that information-gathering methods not
only elicit more diagnostic information, but also produce a corollary
benefit in eliciting more diagnostic cues to deception that observers
can use to effectively discriminate veracity (Meissner, Russano, &
Horgan, 2010).
2211-3681/$ – see front matter © 2012 Society of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.04.007
J.R. Evans et al. / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 1 (2012) 122–123
While the work of Vrij, Granhag, and others provides important
suggestions for the practice of interviewing and credibility assessment, significant challenges are ahead for successful translation of
the current findings. Of course, these issues are not exclusive to the
authors’ research, but are important for scholars in the interviewing
and interrogation realm to consider as well. First, the vast majority of research is performed at the group level, assessing whether
a particular facet of human behavior is influenced, for example, by
a set of contextual manipulations. Successful translation of grouplevel research findings to application at the level of discrete cases
requires that scholars consider adopting paradigms that provide
empirical assessment of a phenomenon at the individual case level
(cf. Faigman, 2010). Of further interest within the deception domain
is whether the content or subject of the lie results in different
internal pressures experienced by the interviewee. For example,
might interviewees react similarly to interviewing strategies that
ask about locations and travel arrangements compared to loyalties and feelings? We acknowledge that Vrij and colleagues have
considered issues such as these previously; however, we urge others to take up the challenge of replicating and extending these
findings, and to examine the extent to which the type of lie may
interact with the proposed strategy of elicitation and the resulting
cues associated with deception. Third, given that little systematic
research has evaluated the processes underlying Human Intelligence (HUMINT) interviews and interrogations relating to military
and intelligence operations (Evans et al., 2010), it will be important
to consider the implications of strategic interviewing approaches
for assessing credibility in contexts that involve eliciting knowledge related to social networks, conversations, and past, present, or
future events. Such contexts may involve a variety of socio-cultural
and interpreter-mediated interactions, as well as a range of emotional and motivational processes that could differ from the typical
forensic context.
Finally, we note here that successful translation of scientific
knowledge from the laboratory to the field likely involves a cyclical process requiring constant assessment and refinement (Dunbar
& Blanchette, 2001; Lane & Meissner, 2008). In fact, such research
programs may actually begin in the field with objective evaluations
of current practice and performance. Findings are then translated
into empirical questions of process and outcome, and experimental paradigms that capture important facets of the field context are
created in the laboratory. Theoretical constructs are applied and
hypotheses are tested under controlled conditions, allowing for a
rich understanding of human behavior in the relevant context and
the development of possible interventions. Successful experimentation should lead to collaborative assessments of the interventions
in field and training contexts, with the translation of findings into
appropriate training materials and the development of metrics that
can be captured in the field context. Field evaluation, of course, will
then frequently lead to findings that require further refinement and
empirical assessment in the laboratory. While Vrij, Granhag, and
their colleagues have greatly advanced our understanding of strategic interviewing approaches that facilitate deception detection, a
123
great deal of effort lies ahead for the successful translation, implementation, and assessment of these approaches in the field context.
In closing, we acknowledge the important contributions offered
by the work of Vrij, Granhag and their colleagues, and we echo their
call for a positive, collaborative, and theory-driven approach to
deception detection. We have attempted to outline several important considerations for the successful translation of these findings
to practice, and we encourage others to contribute to this literature
by developing more complex theoretical models of deception and
demonstrating the efficacy of approaches derived therein across
a variety of important contexts. Importantly, we believe it is critical to engage practitioners as collaborators in this process, and
that laboratory research be translated in a systematic and empirical
manner that might ultimately improve the practice of interviewing,
interrogation, and credibility assessment.
References
Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The
case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334–339.
Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Brandon, S. E., Russano, M. B., & Kleinman, S. M.
(2010). Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance of psychological science to improving interrogative practice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38,
215–249.
Faigman, D. L. (2010). Evidentiary incommensurability: A preliminary exploration
of the problem of reasoning from general scientific data to individualized legal
decision-making. Brooklyn Law Review, 75, 1115–1136.
Lane, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). A middle road approach to bridging the
basic-applied divide in eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 779–787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1482
Meissner, C. A., Hartwig, M., & Russano, M. B. (2010). The need for a
positive psychological approach and collaborative effort for improving
practice in the interrogation room. Law & Human Behavior, 34, 43–45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9205-9
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. Interview and interrogation
methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell Systematic
Reviews, in press.
Meissner, C. A., Russano, M. B., & Horgan, A. J. (2010). The diagnostic efficacy of
inquisitorial interrogative methods and their corollary benefit for credibility
assessment. In Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society conference
Vancouver, BC, March.
Meissner, C. A., Russano, M. B., & Narchet, F. M. (2010). The importance of a laboratory science for improving the diagnostic value of confession evidence. In G. D.
Lassiter, & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice and policy recommendations. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the influence
of investigator bias on true and false confession. Law & Human Behavior, 35,
452–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9257-x
Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A
guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). New York,
NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters
are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal
and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89–121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100610390861
Wells, G., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R., Fulero, S., & Brimacombe,
C. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations
for lineups and photospreads. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025750605807