![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
The current study examined the subjective interview strategies of groups of truth-tellers and liars, and compared these strategies with suspects’ actual interview performance. Participants (N = 126) were evenly divided as truth-tellers or liars, and were further divided into 21 groups of three individuals. Truth-tellers performed a neutral task, while liars performed a mock crime. Participants were then interviewed individually with the goal of convincing the interviewer of their innocence. Three different interview methods were used, spread evenly across veracity condition. Participants disclosed their main subjective strategy in post-interview questionnaires. The most common strategy was be honest for truth-tellers, and be restrictive and be consistent for liars. Truth-tellers’ subjective strategies and actual interview performance were rated as more forthcoming than those of liars. Actual interview performance was qualified by interview type. Results are discussed in relation to research on suspect strategies and interview techniques.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (Grant No. ECRP: 2009-1566) and the European Science Foundation (Grant No. 09-ECRP-025) given to the first author.
Notes
1. Because strategies should have been created prior to the interview, no effect of interview type on strategy chosen was expected. Results support this assumption for both main strategy chosen, χ2(8, N = 124), 7.79, p = .45, and for whether the strategy was forthcoming or not, χ2(2, N = 124),.67, p = .71.