Jacqueline Evans

Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance of psychological science to improving interrogative practice

The discovery of many cases of wrongful conviction in the criminal justice system involving admissions from innocent suspects has led psychologists to examine the factors contributing to false confessions. However, little systematic research has assessed the processes underlying Human Intelligence (HUMINT) interrogations relating to military and intelligence operations. The current article examines the similarities and differences between interrogations in criminal and HUMINT settings, and discusses the extent to which the current empirical literature can be applied to criminal and/or HUMINT interrogations. Finally, areas of future research are considered in light of the need for improving HUMINT interrogation.

Minimization and maximization techniques: assessing the perceived consequences of confessing and confession diagnosticity

Abstract Identifying interrogation strategies that minimize the likelihood of obtaining false information, without compromising the ability to elicit true information, is a challenge faced by both law enforcement and scientists. Previous research suggests that minimization and maximization techniques may be perceived by a suspect as an expectation of leniency and a threat of harsher punishment, respectively, and that these approaches may be associated with false confessions. The current studies examine whether it is possible to distinguish between minimization and maximization techniques that do or do not influence a suspects perceptions of the consequences of confessing. Results indicate that techniques that manipulate the perceived consequences of confessing influence both the decision to confess and the diagnostic value of confession evidence.

Witness Memory and Alcohol: The Effects of State-Dependent Recall.

Many real-world eyewitnesses are under the influence of alcohol either at the time of the crime, the interview, or both. Only recently has empirical research begun to examine the effects of alcohol on witness memory, yielding mixed results. The present study tested the importance of state-dependent memory in the context of alcohol’s effects on encoding versus retrieval of a witnessed event, while simultaneously informing real-world investigative practices: Should witnesses sober up before an interview? Participants (N = 249) were randomized to a control, placebo, or alcohol condition at encoding and to either an immediate retrieval condition (in the same state) or a 1-week delay control, placebo, or alcohol retrieval condition. They recalled a witnessed mock crime using open ended and cued recall formats. After a delay, witnesses intoxicated at both encoding and retrieval provided less accurate information than witnesses in sober or placebo groups at both times. There was no advantage of state-dependent memory but intoxicated witnesses were best when recalling immediately compared to 1 week later (sober, placebo, or reintoxicated). Findings have direct implications for the timing of intoxicated witnesses’ interviews such that moderately intoxicated witnesses may not benefit from a sobering delay but rather, should be interviewed immediately.

The ability to detect false statements as a function of the type of statement and the language proficiency of the statement provider.

The ability to detect deception is critical in criminal and investigative contexts. Society continues to become more diverse as international travel becomes more commonplace; as such, it has never been so essential to understand the potential impact of speakers’ language proficiency on assessing their credibility. Recently, deception researchers have turned their attention to statements provided by nonnative English speakers, thus far yielding inconsistent results. To further investigate this issue, community members, who were classified into 4 English proficiency groups (i.e., fluent, higher proficiency, medium proficiency, and lowest proficiency), provided 4 statements. These included true and false statements that were autobiographical, and true and false statements that were opinion centered. Observers rated the likelihood that these speakers were being truthful or deceptive. Observers’ accuracy and discrimination were best for the lowest-proficiency speakers; the other proficiency groups did not differ from each other. This suggests that lie detection is more effective when speakers provide statements in their nonnative language. However, relative to fluent English speakers there was a smaller truth bias for the lowest-proficiency speakers, which suggests that if nonnative speakers provide their statements in their nonnative language they may be judged as more deceptive than their native-speaker counterparts. Overall the present findings highlight the need for additional research, given the disparate results in the literature and the lack of clear policies regarding how nonnative speakers’ credibility should be assessed.