SCANning for truth. Scholars’ and practitioners’ perceptions on the use(fulness) of Scientific Content Analysis in detecting deception during police interviews

References

• Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
   Google Scholar
• Armistead, T. W. (2011). Detecting deception in written statements: The British Home Office study of scientific content analysis (SCAN). Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(4), 588–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111180225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Article 2bis Belgian Pre-trial detention Act. https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&table_name=wet&cn=1990072035
   Google Scholar
• Article 47bis Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure. https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=1808111730&table_name=wet
   Google Scholar
• Bell, K., Fahmy, E., & Gordon, D. (2016). Quantitative conversations: The importance of developing rapport in standardised interviewing. Quality & Quantity, 50(1), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0144-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bockstaele, M. (2019). SCAN versus experimenteel wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Panopticon, 40(2), 120–135.
   Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G. (2017). Catching liars by listening carefully: Promises and challenges for verbal credibility assessment. Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
   Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Colwell, K., & Crans, S. (2019). Using the reality interview improves the accuracy of the criteria-based content analysis and reality monitoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 1018–1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3537
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., & Vrij, A. (2014a). Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., Broers, N. J., & Merckelbach, H. (2014b). SCAN is largely driven by 12 criteria: Results from sexual abuse statements. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(5), 430–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.793338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., Broers, N. J., & Merckelbach, H. (2014c). Contextual bias in verbal credibility assessment: Criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H. (2016a). Scientific content analysis (SCAN) cannot distinguish between truthful and fabricated accounts of a negative event. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H. (2016b). Strong, but wrong: Lay people’s and police officers’ beliefs about verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. PLoS One, 11(6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cape, E., & Hodgson, J. (2014). The right of access to a lawyer at police stations: Making the European Union Directive work in practice. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 5(4), 450–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441400500404
   Google Scholar
• Decorte, T., & Zaitch, D. (2016). Kwalitatieve methoden en technieken in de criminologie. Acco.
   Google Scholar
• De Greef, K., & De Fruyt, F. (2006). Competenties in het politieverhoor: Structuur, meting en het verband met persoonlijkheid. Panopticon, 27(1), 12–30.
   Google Scholar
• Giannoulopoulos, D. (2016). Strasbourg jurisprudence, law reform and comparative law: A tale of the right to custodial legal assistance in five countries. Human Rights Law Review, 16(1), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngv039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudjonsson, G. H., & Pearse, J. (2011). Suspect interviews and false confessions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410396824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halcomb, E. J., & Davidson, P. M. (2006). Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary? Applied Nursing Research, 19(1), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2005.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heydon, G. (2008). Are police organisations suspending their disbelief in Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN)? iIIRG Bulletin, 1(1), 8–9.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, S. M., & Lee, H. (2014). Detecting deception by analyzing written statements in Korean. Linguistic Evidence in Security, Law and Intelligence, 2(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5195/lesli.2014.13
   Google Scholar
• Kleinberg, B., Arntz, A., & Verschuere, B. (2019). Being accurate about accuracy in verbal deception detection. PLos One, 14(8), 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knutsson, J., & Tompson, L. (2017). Advances in evidence-based policing. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Komel, M., Šterk, K., Župan Galunić, A., & Savić, G. (2020). SCAN revisited through linguistic psychoanalysis. Criminalistic Theory and Practice, 7(12), 7–30.
   Google Scholar
• Leal, S., Vrij, A., Deeb, H., & Kamermans, K. (2019). Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: The Ghostwriter method. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(2), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal, S., Vrij, A., Vernham, Z., Dalton, G., Jupe, L., Harvey, A., & Nahari, G. (2018). Cross cultural verbal deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(2), 192–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LSI. (n.d.). LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. https://www.lsiscan.com/index.htm
   Google Scholar
• McPeake, J., Bateson, M., & O’Neill, A. (2014). Electronic surveys: How to maximise success. Nurse Researcher, 21(3), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2014.01.21.3.24.e1205
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, E., Vrij, A., Merckelbach, H., & Vlek, F. (2008). SCAN: Scientific? Content analysis. Maastricht University.
   Google Scholar
• Mergaerts, L., & Dehaghani, R. (2020). Protecting vulnerable suspects in police investigations in Europe: Lessons learned from England and Wales and Belgium. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 11(3), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284420943299
   Google Scholar
• Nahari, G. (2019). ‘Language of lies’: Urgent issues and prospects in verbal lie detection research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2011). Does the truth come out in the writing? SCAN as a lie detection tool. Law and Human Behavior, 36(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicklaus, M., & Stein, D. (2020). The role of linguistics in veracity evaluation. International Journal of Language & Law, 9, 23–47. https://doi.org/10.14762/jll.2020.023
   Google Scholar
• Oberlader, V. A., Quinten, L., Banse, R., Volbert, R., Schmidt, A. F., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2020). Validity of content-based techniques for credibility assessment – How telling is an extended meta-analysis taking research bias into account? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schell-Leugers, J. M., Masip, J., González, J. L., Vanderhallen, M., & Kassin, S. M. (2022). Police interviewing in Spain: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2022a4
   Google Scholar
• Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7), 749–752.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, N., & Willis, C. F. (2001). Reading between the lines: An evaluation of the scientific content analysis technique (SCAN). Police Research Series – Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• ten Brinke, L., & Porter, S. (2013). Discovering deceit: Applying laboratory and field research in the search for truthful and deceptive behavior. In B. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 221–237). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2021). Principles on effective interviewing for investigations and information gathering.
   Google Scholar
• Van Beek, M., & Hoekendijk, J. (2016). The investigative interviewing of suspects in the Netherlands. In D. Walsh, G. E. Oxburgh, A. D. Redlich, & T. Myklebust (Eds.), International developments and practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation. Volume 2: Suspects (pp. 157–170). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderhallen, M., De Jong, A., & Vervaeke, G. (2016b). Interviewing suspects in Belgium. In D. Walsh, G. E. Oxburg, A. D. Redlich, & T. Myklebust (Eds.), International developments and practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation. Volume 2: Suspects (pp. 85–97). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderhallen, M., Jaspaert, E., & Vervaeke, G. (2016a). SCAN as an investigative tool. Police Practice and Research, 17(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2015.1008479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhage, A., & Boels, D. (2015). Systematische reviews van kwalitatief onderzoek binnen de criminologie. Panopticon, 36(3), 302–311.
   Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., Bogaard, G., & Meijer, E. (2021). Discriminating deceptive from truthful statements using the verifiability approach: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Deeb, H., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., & Fisher, R. P. (2021c). Plausibility: A verbal cue to veracity worth examining? The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Leal, S. (2022). How researchers can make verbal lie detection more attractive for practitioners. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2035842
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Leal, S., Deeb, H., Chan, S., Khader, M., Chai, W., & Chin, J. (2019). Lying about flying: The efficacy of the information protocol and model statement for detecting deceit. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2021a). Combining verbal veracity assessment techniques to distinguish truth tellers from lie tellers. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., & Nahari, G. (2017). Verbal lie detection. In A. Granhag, R. Bull, A. Shaboltas, & E. Dozortseva (Eds.), Psychology and law in Europe: When west meets east (pp. 263–281). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Palena, N., Leal, S., & Caso, L. (2021b). The relationship between complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies and veracity: A meta-analysis. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45–55.
   Google Scholar