Maximising Opportunities To Detect Verbal Deception

Summary: The article Maximising Opportunities to Detect Verbal Deception written by C.J Dando & R. Bull is written to show facts from their research shows that they have a stronger and more accurate way of conducting interviews. In the past Interviewers in criminal cases have used the strategy and early approach. The strategy or “late” approach has the interviewer ask all questions first, then reveal all information known about the case and evidence to the suspect after all questions have been asked, and finally give the suspect time to explain the answer they have given that contradict the evidence. The early approach is simple, the interviewer reveals all information known about the case to the suspect in an attempt to force them into confessing. …show more content…
After the game, five interviewers each of which were professionals were given one hour to compose their interview and all of the mock suspects were told to convince the interviewers that the player had been a builder in the game. Before all of this, the interviewers were trained in the tactical method by the research team. Over a one week period, each of the interviewers interviewed 30 of the mock suspects, 10 of which were interviewed using each of the three methods, tactical, strategic, and early. After interviewing all of the students, it was found that by using the tactical approach, interviewers could more accurately find who was lying ( 64% for deceivers and 74% for liers) as opposed to the strategic method (54% and 53%) and the early method (42% and …show more content…
I figured I’d take a look into an article detailing how professionals deal with suspects lying in an interview for a case, and how they maximised catching suspects trying to be deceptive. This article was highly interesting and was well organized and made some good points. All the information was laid out in order and was for the most part easy to understand. The numbers they gave and the formula they used in the results was very confusing, it might make more sense to someone more knowledgeable in this field, but it made little sense to me. The written results were more easily deciphered and understood, giving simple percents to show which method of interviewing was most accurate and reliable. It made sense that the tactical method was the most accurate way of determining who was lying. The early method made it too easy for liers to make their lies around the information that the interviewer knew, so it was easier to make the lies sound more real and not conflict with the story. The strategy method was good, but it put both guilty suspects and innocent suspects the same situation. If an innocent person didn’t know all the facts, and were confused about their story, they may seem suspicious when the interviewer brings out all the facts at the end and questions them. It gives both innocent and guilty