Strategic Use Of Evidence Technique Research Articles

The shift-of-strategy (SoS) approach: using evidence strategically to influence suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies

ABSTRACT The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach is an extension of the Strategic Use of Evidence technique. In the SoS approach, interviewers influence suspects’ strategies to encourage suspects to become more forthcoming with information by challenging discrepancies between their statements and the available evidence, in a non-accusatory manner. Our aim was to test the effectiveness of two variations of the SoS approach, one in which the interviewer responded immediately to any discrepancies with the evidence (Reactive) and one in which the interviewer only responded to severe discrepancies (Selective). We predicted that the SoS approach conditions would be more effective at eliciting new information from mock suspects, compared to direct questioning. In a laboratory experiment, N = 300 mock suspects committed a simulated crime and were interviewed using one of the two versions of the SoS approach or with an interviewing approach that did not involve the presentation of evidence. The Reactive version of the SoS approach was more effective than direct questioning at eliciting new information from mock suspects. The Reactive technique also led participants to change their strategies during the interview. The present experiment provided initial support for the core principles of the SoS approach.

Untapped Potential? A Survey Study with German Police Officers into Suspect Interviewing Practices and the Strategic Use of Evidence

ABSTRACTThe Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique is a promising suspect interviewing approach that takes the potentially incriminating information against a suspect (i.e., the evidence) into account and aims at actively eliciting diagnostic cues to deception and truth. The technique was successfully tested in multiple research studies and has been introduced to practitioners in different parts of the world (including Germany). However, not much is known about German police officers’ state of practice, their knowledge, as well as how they perceive and evaluate SUE. The current survey study is the first attempt to generate knowledge on this topic by collecting data from police officers from the states of Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg. The majority of police officers kept a balance between applying non-standardized/standardized interviewing approaches, discussing preplanned/spontaneous themes in the interview and making analytical/gut decisions on when and how to use evidence during suspect interviews. Regarding their suspect interviewing training, only a minority of the officers reported to have received training on how to use evidence during an interview. These findings – in combination with the observation that the majority of the officers did not see potential obstacles with the applicability of the SUE technique – suggest a major untapped potential of strategic evidence disclosure techniques within current suspect interviewing in Germany.

How to make perpetrators in denial disclose more information about their crimes

ABSTRACTThis study examined interview techniques for eliciting admissions from perpetrators of a crime. Two techniques derived from the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) framework (SUE-Confrontation and SUE-Confrontation/Explain) were compared to an Early Disclosure of Evidence technique. Participants (N = 75) performed a mock criminal task divided into three phases before being interviewed. In the SUE conditions, statement-evidence inconsistencies were obtained by strategic interviewing for Phases 1 and 2. For both SUE conditions, the interviewer confronted the suspects with these inconsistencies, emphasising that withholding information undermined their credibility. For the SUE-Confrontation/Explain condition, the suspects were asked to explain each inconsistency. To restore their credibility, the suspects in the SUE conditions were expected to become more forthcoming in Phase 3 (the phase which lacked information). The suspects in the SUE-Confrontation condition (vs. the suspects in the Early Disclosure condition) disclosed more admissions about Phase 3. As predicted, the suspects in the SUE conditions perceived the interviewer to have had comparatively more information about Phase 3. The suspects in the SUE-Confrontation/Explain condition strived to maintain their credibility either by fitting their story to the evidence or by sticking to the initial story. The study shows that the SUE technique is effective for eliciting admissions.

Training in the Strategic Use of Evidence technique: Improving deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers

The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) approach is a framework for planning and executing suspect interviews with the aim of facilitating judgments of truth and deception. US law enforcement officers (N = 59) either received training in the SUE approach or did not. Each officer interviewed a mock suspect (N = 59) who had either committed a simulated security breach or had completed a benign task. The officers who received SUE training interviewed in line with the training: They questioned the suspect systematically, withheld the evidence and critical case information until after questioning, and relied on statement-evidence inconsistency to detect deceit. Consequently, SUE-trained interviewers achieved a higher deception detection accuracy rate (65%) compared to untrained interviewers (43%).

Countermeasures Against the Strategic Use of Evidence Technique: Effects on Suspects' Strategies

AbstractAs the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique becomes more widely taught to practitioners, it is important to investigate possible countermeasures to the technique. It is possible that guilty suspects who are aware of the SUE technique will employ forthcoming verbal strategies to make themselves appear innocent. Mock suspects committed a richly detailed simulated transgression (or a benign analogue) and were interviewed about their activities. Prior to questioning, some suspects received information about SUE tactics the interviewer was likely to use. Guilty suspects who were informed about the SUE technique employed more verbally forthcoming strategies than their uninformed counterparts. Guilty suspects who were given SUE information also reported planning for the interview in different ways. However, guilty‐informed suspects did not become as forthcoming as innocent suspects overall. In sum, it appears that information about the SUE technique induces guilty suspects to alter their strategies, but only to a relatively small degree.Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Small Cells of Suspects: Eliciting Cues to Deception by Strategic Interviewing

AbstractInvestigators often have to deal with small groups of suspects, and this is true both for criminal cases and for suspected terrorist cases. There is, however, very little research examining the effectiveness of different interview techniques when facing cells of suspects. In order to remedy this shortcoming, we examined the extent to which three interviewing techniques elicited cues to deception from small groups of suspects. In one technique, the evidence was disclosed early in the interview (early evidence); in another, the evidence was disclosed late using the Strategic use of evidence technique (SUE‐basic); and in the third technique, the evidence was disclosed late and with an increased strength and precision (SUE‐incremental). We used a mock‐theft scenario with 126 participants randomly allocated to one of six conditions: guilty or innocent suspects interrogated with one of the three disclosure tactics. The SUE‐incremental proved to be the most effective technique, resulting in significant differences between guilty and innocent suspects for all three cues examined: statement‐evidence inconsistency, within‐statement inconsistency, and within‐group inconsistency. Based on the findings, we argue that the SUE technique is effective also for eliciting cues to deception when used for small groups of suspects. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Interviewing to Detect Deception: When to Disclose the Evidence?

Research shows that there are few objective cues to deception. However, it may be possible to create such cues by strategic interviewing techniques. Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) is one such technique. The basic premise of the SUE technique is that liars and truth tellers employ different counter-interrogation strategies, and that the evidence against the suspect can be used to exploit these differences in strategies. This study examined the effect of the timing of evidence disclosure (early vs. late vs. gradual) on verbal cues to deception. We predicted that late disclosure would be most effective in differentiating between liars and truth-tellers, and that cues to deception in the gradual disclosure condition would progressively disappear due to the suspects’ realization that evidence against them exists. That is, we expected that liars in the gradual presentation condition would become more consistent with the evidence over time. A sample of 86 undergraduate students went through a mock-terrorism paradigm (half innocent, half guilty), and were subsequently interviewed using one of three disclosure strategies: early, gradual, and late disclosure. We measured statement-evidence inconsistencies as cues to deception . Results supported our predictions in that cues to deception were most pronounced in the late disclosure condition. Contrary to our expectations, the results suggested that presenting the evidence gradually may put innocent suspects at a higher risk of misclassification as they seem to adopt a strategy that is more similar to guilty suspects.

The usual and the unusual suspects: level of suspicion and counter‐interrogation tactics

AbstractThe present study investigated guilty mock‐suspects' counter‐interrogation tactics with respect to the disclosure of possibly self‐incriminating information, specifically, to what extent the disclosure of this information was moderated by (1) the suspects' criminal experience (naïve versus experienced) and (2) the degree of suspicion directed towards the suspects (low versus high). We found that experienced (versus naïve) suspects volunteered less self‐incriminating information in an initial free recall phase. In a similar vein, when asked crime‐specific questions, naïve (versus experienced) suspects admitted having committed more actions fitting with the crime under investigation. Furthermore, experienced suspects' willingness to report information was not affected by the degree of suspicion, whereas naïve suspects in a high‐suspicion (versus low‐suspicion) condition were more willing to report information. The results were discussed in the light of the psychology of guilt, the Strategic Use of Evidence technique for detecting deception, and the (over)use of naïve suspects as mock‐suspects in psycho‐legal research. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.