Abstract
Investigators often have multiple suspects to interview in order to determine whether they are guilty or innocent of a crime. Nevertheless, co-offending has been significantly neglected within the deception detection literature. The current review is the first of its kind to discuss co-offending and the importance of examining the detection of deception within groups. Groups of suspects can be interviewed separately (individual interviewing) or simultaneously (collective interviewing) and these differing interviewing styles are assessed throughout the review. The review emphasizes the differences between lone individuals and groups. It focuses on the theoretical implications of group deceit and the reasons why groups need to be understood in terms of investigative interviewing and deception detection if all types of crime-related incidents are to be recognized and dealt with appropriately. Group strategies, consistency within- and between-statements, joint memory, and group dynamics are referred to throughout the review and the importance of developing interview protocols specifically for groups is discussed. The review concludes by identifying the gaps in the literature and suggesting ideas for future research, highlighting that more research is required if we are to obtain a true understanding of the deception occurring within groups and how best to detect it.
Highlights
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Cognition, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
It focuses on the theoretical implications of group deceit and the reasons why groups need to be understood in terms of investigative interviewing and deception detection if all types of crime-related incidents are to be recognized and dealt with appropriately
How would you have interviewed them? Could they have been interviewed together? Do you think that group crimes require the use of different interviewing tactics to solo crimes? What cues to deceit would you focus on? Do you think cues to deceit differ depending on whether the crime is a solo offense or a group offense? The answers to these questions are critical for an effective police investigation and suspect interview, yet police manuals say very little about these issues with researchers only recently addressing such questions
Summary
A group can be defined as “two or more individuals who are connected to one another by social relationships” (Forsyth, 2006, p. 3). It is important to note that there is much debate within the group dynamics literature with regard to the definition of a ‘group’ and whether a dyad constitutes a group (often referred to as the Moreland-Williams debate). The fact that dyads are different from individuals regardless of whether they come under the term ‘group,’ means that the current review is still necessary and relevant for those involved in investigative interviewing and detecting deception. There are numerous reasons why it is important to expand the investigative interviewing and deception detection literature to include groups. Co-offenders are typically younger than solo offenders (Van Mastrigt and Farrington, 2009) It seems that groups are more strategic and view honesty and deception differently from individuals.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
