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

References

• Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing rapport-based interpersonal techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). Whatever you say, say nothing: Individual differences in counter interrogation tactics amongst a field sample of right wing, AQ inspired and paramilitary terrorists. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brimbal, L., Hartwig, M., & Crossman, A. M. (2017). The effect of questions on suspects’ perception of evidence in investigative interviews: What Can We infer from the basic literature? Polygraph, 46(1), 10–39.
   Google Scholar
• Brimbal, L., & Luke, T. J. (in press). Deconstructing the evidence: The effects of strength and reliability of evidence on suspect behavior and counter-interrogation tactics. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.001
   Google Scholar
• Clemens, F., & Grolig, T. (2019). Innocent of the crime under investigation: Suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies and statement-evidence inconsistency in strategic vs. Non-strategic interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(10), 945–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1597093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2014). The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique: A conceptual overview. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Vershuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 231–251). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10.
   Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., Kleinman, S., & Oleszkiewicz, S. (2016). The Scharff technique: On how to effectively elicit intelligence from human sources. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 29(1), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2015.1083341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. J. (2018). How to interview to elicit concealed information: Introducing the shift-of-strategy (SoS) approach. In P. Rosenfeld (Ed.), Detecting concealed information and deception (pp. 271–295). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812729-2.00012-4.
   Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Willén, R. M., & Hartwig, M. (2013). Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: The first test of the evidence framing matrix. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02047.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Håkansson, C. (2020). Do suspects use the counter-interrogation strategies they say they use? Unpublished master’s thesis. Available at https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/63440/1/gupea_2077_63440_1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. J. (2014a). Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts, & J. C. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 1–36). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394433-7.00001-4.
   Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160600750264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30(5), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-5521-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Luke, T. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2018). Validating the strategic Use of Evidence technique. Unpublished Report Submitted to the High-Value Interrogation Group.
   Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Meissner, C. A., & Semel, M. D. (2014b). Human intelligence interviewing and interrogation: Assessing the challenges of developing an ethical, evidence-based approach. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 209–228). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_11.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, C., Miller, J., & Redlich, A. (2016). The dynamic nature of interrogation. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000172
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTestPackage: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects ModelsLmertest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t-tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, T. J. (2021). A meta-analytic review of experimental tests of the interrogation technique of Hanns Joachim Scharff. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yxpja
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, T. J., Crozier, W. E., & Strange, D. (2017a). Memory errors in police interviews: The bait question as a source of misinformation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, T. J., Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2014a). How awareness of possible evidence induces forthcoming counter-interrogation strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 876–882. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Jordan, S., Joseph, E., Osborne, J., & Granhag, P. A. (2014b). Interviewing to elicit cues to deception: Improving strategic use of evidence with general-to-specific framing of evidence. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 28(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9113-7
   Google Scholar
• Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., & Granhag, P. A. (2017b). Building a case: The role of empirically-based interviewing techniques in case construction. In H. Otgaar, & M. Howe (Eds.), Finding the truth in the courtroom: Dealing with deception, lies and, memories (pp. 187–208). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190612016.003.0009
   Google Scholar
• Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Joseph, E., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Dawson, E., Jordan, S., Granhag, P. A., & Donovan, P. (2016a). Training in the Strategic Use of Evidence technique: Improving deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officersTraining in the Strategic Use of Evidence: Improving deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31(4), 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9187-0
   Google Scholar
• Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Shamash, B., & Granhag, P. A. (2016b). Countermeasures against the Strategic Use of Evidence technique: Effects on suspects’ strategies. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, L., Granhag, P. A., & Tekin, S. (2017). Interviewing suspects in denial: On How different evidence disclosure modes affect the elicitation of New critical information. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meteyard, L., & Davies, R. A. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neequaye, D. A., & Luke, T. J. (2020). The disclosure-outcomes management model: Propositions to facilitate research aimed at explaining intelligence interviewees’ disclosure of information. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tfp2c.
   Google Scholar
• Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Cancino Montecinos, S. (2014). The scharff-technique: Eliciting intelligence from human sources. Law and Human Behavior, 38(5), 478–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(4), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Scharff, H. J. (1950). Without torture. Argosy, 39, 87–91.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013). Life after P-hacking. SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2205186
   Google Scholar
• Srivatsav, M., Luke, T. J., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L., & Vrij, A. (2021). What to reveal and what to conceal? An empirical examination of guilty suspects’. Strategies. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice, 11(1), 8–27.
   Google Scholar
• Srivatsav, M., Luke, T. J., Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2020). How do the questions asked affect suspects’ perceptions of the interviewer’s prior knowledge? Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 17(2), 160–1732. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surmon-Böhr, F., Alison, L., Christiansen, P., & Alison, E. (2020). The right to silence and the permission to talk: Motivational interviewing and high-value detainees. American Psychologist, 75(7), 1011–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tekin, S. (2016). Eliciting admissions from suspects in criminal investigations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Available at https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/44452/4/gupea_2077_44452_4.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tekin, S., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Mac Giolla, E., Vrij, A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). Interviewing strategically to elicit admissions from guilty suspects. Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000131
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tekin, S., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2016). How to make perpetrators in denial disclose more information about their crimes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(6), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1168425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toliver, R. F. (1997). The interrogator. Schiffer Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar