How Does the Strategic Use of Evidence Assist in the Detection of Deception?
The years past have shown important milestones when it comes to uncovering truth and deception in many areas of life, including in various fields such as law, research, medicine, and politics, among others. Experts reveal that deception is a result of a psychological issue on the individual committing the deceptive action. This paper will focus on clearly identifying what the concept of deception is as well as provide methods on eliciting truth and uncover dishonesty and fraud through the strategic use of evidence. Different tactics on how to do this will also be presented where, using the different techniques could lead to different outcomes, but which only comes from or use the same set of general principles.
In the legal system, deception is defined as a premeditated attempt to make another person believe what the communicator says is true or untrue. This may be done without prior warning and may result to either a successful or unsuccessful outcome (Hartwig, 2005, p. 1). Thus, in this context, deception is an act that involves more than one person.
In scientific research, deception occurs when those involved in the process of research “intentionally act or withhold information from participants so that they hold false beliefs” (Wang, 2014), thus, saying a lot about the ethical behavior of the individuals involved in the research. According to ethical research beliefs, participants in a research must always be informed that they are being used as part of a research and the reasons why such a research is important. Otherwise, deceiving participants can be an upsetting experience for those who joined the research as they will feel misled.
A very important factor that needs to be taken into account in these definitions is the intentionality of purpose to deceive or make another person believe something in the guise of truth. Without the intent to deceive, any false information presented to another individual cannot be called a deception especially when the sender of the message does not have the objective of causing harm or pain to another.
In many cases, deception is used in the hope of finding the truth. While such a practice is deemed unethical, it has played a prominent role in uncovering deeply hidden truths that are not supposed to be revealed. Questions as to the use of deception abound, but are usually countered by rationales that may have some basis or bearing on the legitimacy of using deception. In the field of research, for instance, deception is everywhere. Experts believe that is impossible to complete a research without using deception. As an example, a psychologist can only generate or reproduce the natural behavior of a subject if the subject is unaware of certain conditions pertaining to the test (Gunderman & Kane, 2013).
In psychological research, this has been widely used as a method to encourage subjects to share more of their thoughts and feelings, which could also lead to the revelation of some behavioral nuances that can prove useful to the research. However, despite the use of deception, experts still argue that they only use small lies to uncover larger truths. While this practice may be frowned upon in the real world, in the research field, it is a compromise that has to be made and an essential tool in the pursuit of knowledge.
Another reason is that it is present in politics, media, and everyday interactions with other people, among others. When people realize that they are being studied or their actions and behaviors are being compromised, the tendency is for them to unconsciously put on masks to hide their thoughts and feelings. In the legal system, suspects use their own counter-measures during investigations through their own line of questioning. They use their own counter-interrogation strategies to be able to endure investigations, including appearing calm, composed, and convincing during the session (Clemens, 2013, p. 5). They may attempt to control their actions and use a different tone when speaking.
Interviews are effective ways of determining the psychological status of the suspect, but having hard evidence should not be discounted. Thus, the use of evidence during an interview and the timing of the presentation of evidence are crucial points when detecting deception. Clemens (2013) reported that evidence related approaches to detecting deception, timing is very important, that is, the disclosure of evidence which may be presented at the beginning of the interrogation or towards the end of the interview (p. 17). Studies revealed that while most police manuals recommend that evidences are disclosed early on during the investigation interview, doing so produce mixed results when it comes to detecting deception. It is not even the main method used by other investigators, but rather one among the many other options (Detection of Deception: Use of Evidence, n.d).
One of these methods is called the strategic use of evidence (SUE) technique, which is an evidence-related technique in detecting deception. The technique is based on three psychological domains, namely, “the psychology of instrumental mind-reading the psychology of self-regulation [and] the psychology of guilt and innocence” (Clemens, 2013, p. 17). The first domain, instrumental mind-reading, works on the premise that an investigator can predict an individual’s impending behavior through verbal and action cues according to the other person’s mental state. The other person’s demeanor will largely be the basis of the inferences whether the other person is guilty or not (Granhag & Hartwig, 2008, p. 191). Thus, during an investigative interview, the investigator’s main goal is to read the mind of the suspect and determine his or her next moves and behaviors.
The second domain, or the psychology of self-regulation, pertains to various ways a suspect controls his or her behavior during an investigative interview. In most cases, self-regulation happens without the person being aware or conscious that he is inhibiting himself from the interview proceedings or that he is controlling his behavior. However, it is still possible for suspects to deliberately control emotions especially when placed in threatening situations which could put him in a bad light or when suspect has no knowledge of what is going to happen next. Additionally, not knowing how much information the interviewer has of the suspect can automatically put the suspect in defensive mode, thus, evoking self-regulation (Granhag & Hartwig, 2008, p. 192).
The last domain is the psychology of guilt and innocence, where both the guilty and the innocent view interviews as threatening and stressful. But the difference comes from the guilty having full knowledge of the real events that transpired as compared with the innocent. Based on the interview, it would soon become apparent to the interviewer that the person is guilty according to responses to questions the suspect offers. Therefore, the stress from the guilty person’s side arises from the notion that the interviewer might see through his or her answers and thus, judge the suspect as guilty. The innocent has the same concerns, but the difference lies on whether the interviewer sees that the innocent is not guilty of any crime or not (Granhag & Hartwig, 2008, p. 193).
The SUE technique functions on the principle that both the guilty and the innocent use various strategies when in an investigative interview situation. This is because innocent suspects are more cooperative when relating the events. In some cases, these suspects waive their Miranda rights in the belief that their innocence and cooperation will help and protect them, believing that justice will be served correctly (Keene, 2011). Additionally, they think that by being transparent with information they know, they will get the justice that they deserve. On the other hand, the guilty suspects tend to keep to themselves and make their statements as simple as possible in the hopes that they will not divulge incriminating information to interviewers (Luke, Hartwig, Brimbal, Chan, Jordan, Joseph, Osborne, & Granhag, 2012, p. 55).
Understanding the mental state and behaviors of a suspect helps when the SUE technique is employed. This is because the technique works both on the guilty and the innocent suspect’s strategies. Through evidence framing, which is used in the SUE technique, an interviewer can ensure that information gathering can result to much useful information. This involves disclosing evidence in varying degrees and instances, usually following the general to specific approach, which is a low precision method of divulging evidence. Then the interviewer can move to a more radical approach, that is, a specific to general approach that draws on higher levels of accuracy in the presentation of evidence (Luke et al., 2012, p. 56).
In the past, evidence was initially withheld from suspects instead of presenting them with evidences at the start of the interrogation. This is because suspects tend to stick to stories or facts they know based on what was presented to them. However, when suspects are not aware of whatever evidences the interrogator has against them (using the general to specific SUE technique), they tend to make inconsistent statements that go against evidences that will be presented to them later on (Hartwig, 2005, p. 40). As a result, it is easier to point out the liars from those being interviewed (Hartwig, Granhag, Stromwall, & Kronkvist, 2006, p. 604).
Deception can be addictive and habit-forming. When people engage in such actions and behaviors, then it becomes part of their norm. Unconsciously, they begin to do it regardless of what situation they are in, but mostly, during instances when they have done something wrong. However, with the use of general to specific evidence exposé techniques, it is easier to distinguish between liars and innocents. The ways the guilty suspects and innocent suspects present their “truths” differ considering the manner on how they deliver their statements, but the agitation and stress experienced by both are the same. When investigators employ the general to specific method in gathering and presenting evidences, they are likely to get more out of the interrogation, especially when guilty suspects become inconsistent with whatever evidences are present against them.
References
Clemens, F. (2013). Detecting lies about past and future actions: The Strategic use of evidence (SUE) technique and suspects’ strategies. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/32705/1/gupea_2077_32705_1.pdf
Detection of deception: Use of evidence. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2016 from http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/police-psychology/detection-of-deception-use-of-evidence/
Granhag, P.A., Stromwal, L.A., & Hartwig, M. (2007). The SUE technique: The way to interview to detect deception. Forensic Update 88. Retrieved April 21, 2016 from http://www.academia.edu/6463347/The_SUE_technique_The_way_to_detect_deception
Granhag, P.A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind reading. Psychology, Crime, & Law 14(3), 189-200. Retrieved April 24, 2016 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240236789_A_new_theoretical_perspective_on_deception_detection_On_the_psychology_of_instrumental_mind-reading
Gunderman, R., & Kane, L. (2013). A study in deception: Psychology’s sickness. Retrieved April 20, 2016 from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/a-study-in-deception-psychologys-sickness/274739/
Hartwig, M. (2005). Interrogating to detect deception and truth: Effects of strategic use of evidence. ResearchGate. Retrieved April 16, 2016. PDF.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Stromwall, L., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works. Retrieved April 21, 2016 from http://www.academia.edu/6459761/Strategic_Use_of_Evidence_During_Police_Interviews_When_Training_to_Detect_Deception_Works
Keene, D. (2011). Outsmarting liars (five decades of research). Retrieved April 21, 2016 from http://keenetrial.com/blog/2011/04/04/outsmarting-liars-five-decades-of-research/
Luke, T.J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Jordan, S., Joseph, E., Osborne, J., & Granhag, P.A. (2012). Interviewing to elicit cues to deception: Improving strategic use of evidence with general-to-specific framing of evidence. Retrieved April 24, 2016 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257763655_Interviewing_to_Elicit_Cues_to_Deception_Improving_Strategic_Use_of_Evidence_with_General-To-Specific_Framing_of_Evidence
Wang, S. S. (2014). The role of deception in scientific research. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 18, 2016 from http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-role-of-deception-in-scientific-research-1409009297
