Timothy J. Luke

Strategic Use of Evidence During Investigative Interviews: The State of the Science

Abstract This chapter describes the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique – an interview method aimed at eliciting cues to deception, and thereby improving the chances of correct judgments of deception and truth. The chapter begins with a general overview of research on deception and its detection, in order to provide a context for the SUE technique. The psychological foundations of the technique are described, with a particular focus on suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies. We then review the empirical research on the SUE technique, in order to illustrate how the principles of the SUE technique can be translated into interview tactics. We also describe how these tactics produce different verbal responses from lying and truth-telling suspects, and how these cues can be utilized by lie-catchers in order to detect deception. Finally, we will provide a meta-analysis of the available research on the SUE technique.

On the general acceptance of confessions research: Opinions of the scientific community.

Eighty-seven experts on the psychology of confessions—many of whom were highly published, many with courtroom experience—were surveyed online about their opinions on 30 propositions of relevance to deception detection, police interrogations, confessions, and relevant general principles of psychology. As indicated by an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that several findings are sufficiently reliable to present in court. This list includes but is not limited to the proposition that the risk of false confessions is increased not only by explicit threats and promises but by 2 common interrogation tactics—namely, the false evidence ploy and minimization tactics that imply leniency by offering sympathy and moral justification. Experts also strongly agreed that the risk of undue influence is higher among adolescents, individuals with compliant or suggestible personalities, and those with intellectual impairments or diagnosed psychological disorders. Additional findings indicated that experts set a high standard before judging a proposition to be sufficiently reliable for court—and an even higher standard on the question “Would you testify?” Regarding their role as scientific experts, virtually all respondents stated that their primary objective was to educate the jury and that juries are more competent at evaluating confession evidence with assistance from an expert than without. These results should assist trial courts and expert witnesses in determining what aspects of the science are generally accepted and suitable for presentation in court.

The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of Terrorism on Perceptions of Interrogation Techniques

Through a novel application of terror management theory, we investigated the effect of mortality salience and reminders of terrorism on peoples perceptions of the effectiveness and acceptability of interrogation techniques. A dimensional structure by which people perceive interrogation techniques was identified. Mortality salience was found to induce higher levels of acceptance of violent and demeaning techniques, but no other significant effects were found. In line with terror management theory, the effect of mortality salience on only the perceived acceptability of violent interrogation techniques suggests that people may be motivated to endorse the usage of punitive techniques on military prisoners, regardless of the perceived effectiveness of these techniques.