Showing papers by "Aldert Vrij published in 2002"

Suspects, lies, and videotape: an analysis of authentic high-stake liars.

Abstract: This study is one of the very few, and the most extensive to date, which has examined deceptive behavior in a real-life, high-stakes setting. The behavior of 16 suspects in their police interviews has been analyzed. Clips of video footage have been selected where other sources (reliable witness statements and forensic evidence) provide evidence that the suspect lied or told the truth. Truthful and deceptive behaviors were compared. The suspects blinked less frequently and made longer pauses during deceptive clips than during truthful clips. Eye contact was maintained equally for deceptive and truthful clips. These findings negate the popular belief amongst both laypersons and professional lie detectors (such as the police) that liars behave nervously by fidgeting and avoiding eye contact. However, large individual differences were present.

Will the truth come out? the effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores.

Abstract: The impact of Veracity, Age, Status (witness or suspect), Coaching (informed or uninformed regarding CBCA), and Social Skills (social anxiety, social adroitness, and self-monitoring) on Criteria-Based Content Analysis scores was examined. Participants (aged 5–6, 10–11, 14–15, and undergraduates) participated in a “rubbing the blackboard” event. In a subsequent interview they told the truth or lied about the event. They were accused of having rubbed the blackboard themselves (suspect condition) or were thought to have witnessed the event (witness condition), and were or were not taught some CBCA criteria prior to the interview. CBCA scores discriminated between liars and truth tellers in children, adults, witnesses, and suspects. However, truth tellers obtained higher CBCA scores than liars only when the liars were uninformed about CBCA. CBCA scores were correlated with social skills. It is argued that these findings should caution those who believe that the validity of CBCA has been conclusively demonstrated.

Crashing memories and reality monitoring: distinguishing between perceptions, imaginations and ‘false memories’

Abstract: Research has shown that the memory characteristics questionnaire (MCQ) can be used to discriminate between ‘memories’ of perceived events and ‘memories’ of imagined events. The present study extended this research by examining the utility of the MCQ in distinguishing impossible memories (i.e., reports of an event a person could not have witnessed). Congruent with previous research, a considerable number of participants in both the pilot study (45%) and the main study (44%) were willing to report that they had seen a non-existent film of the car crash in which Diana, Princess of Wales was killed. The MCQ ratings of three groups of participants were therefore compared: (1) those who indicated that they had seen the non-existent film, (2) those who were asked to imagine having seen the film, and (3) a control group who were asked to rate their memory of when they first heard the news of the crash. The MCQ did not serve to distinguish impossible memories, but there were reliable differences on one of the MCQ subscales between those who imagined the film and controls. Furthermore, participants who reported that they had seen the film gave higher scores on the Self Monitoring scale. Implications are discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Police Detectives' Aims regarding Their Interviews with Suspects: Any Change at the Turn of the Millennium?:

Abstract: A questionnaire was devised that included questions regarding what tactics police detectives in England believe they use when interviewing uncooperative suspects and officers’ views on the role of confession. The questionnaire included both closed and open-ended questions, and it was answered by police detectives with extensive first-hand experience of the investigative interviewing of suspects. The detectives’ answers on the questions were rated on a scale one to five, where one meant “not at all important” and five meant “very important.” Findings showed that specialized training in the investigative interviewing of suspects was believed by experienced detectives to be equally important as experience. In addition to specialized training, preparation of the interview was considered to be most important in the investigative interviewing of suspects, followed by the social skills of the interviewer. Planning the interview was crucial as it affected the quality and very often the outcome of an interview. The available evidence in a case determines the style of the interview and the interviewer’s approach towards the suspect. The disclosure of evidence was the tactic the detectives said they used in each and every interview with suspects, and the only variation was the actual time at which the evidence was disclosed, as it differed for each case. The nature of the crime and the individual characteristics of a suspect were reported to influence greatly the choice of tactics used during investigative interviewing. The social skills of the interviewer were always put to the test when dealing with child sexual abuse cases. The extent to which the interviewer could sympathize with the suspect and show understanding often seemed to decide whether the suspect admitted to the offense. The search for the truth, rather than the search for a confession, was seen as the aim of an investigative interview by the majority of the police detectives who took part in this study.

Characteristics of secrets and the frequency, reasons and effects of secrets keeping and disclosure

Abstract: This longitudinal study examines secrets keeping and disclosure. College students filled in two questionnaires, with a 4 months time span in between. Their psychological and physical wellbeing was investigated, together with self-esteem, the topic and some characteristics of their most important secret (if they had a secret), reasons for having the secret, to whom they confide the secret, how they felt about confiding, and whether they thought that their behaviour would reveal that they kept a secret when they talked with someone who is not aware of their secret. The findings showed that total secrecy was rare, and that most secret-holders had informed at least one other person about their secret. Moreover, the findings challenge the view that secrets keeping has negative effects on secret-holders. Results revealed some negative effects, but only when the secret was serious. No positive effects were found for secrets disclosure. Secret-holders confided information to those with whom they felt emotionally close; were more reluctant to confide when they kept the secret to avoid disapproval, and more likely to confide when they believed that others would find out about their secrets by paying attention to their (secret-holders) behaviour.

Sex differences in interpreting male-female dyad interactions: males' predominance in perceiving sexual intent

Abstract: A study is reported investigating gender differences in judging the behaviour of males and females during mixed-dyad conversations and the impact of the endorsement of rape myths in explaining these gender differences. A total of 51 males and 40 females watched a videotape of a male actor and female actor verbally interacting in a social environment and were asked to give their impression about this interaction. They were also requested to fill in the Rape Myths Acceptance Scale (1980). Results revealed that compared to females, males had a stronger tendency to see the interaction in sexual terms. Also, male participants endorsed rape myths more strongly. Finally, gender differences in rape myth endorsements accounted for gender differences in perceiving male-female mixed-dyad interactions to alimited extent. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Questions, Preconceptions and Reactions: Police Use of Lethal Force in Britain

Abstract: In two studies using realistic simulations the authors investigated the information requested by Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) while driving to an incident and the relationship between the in...

Fact or fiction? verbal and behavioural clues to detect deception

Abstract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