Forensic Psychology Notes:

Lecture 1
The Law
- IT DEPENDS.
• The legal system is comprised of a body of laws, rules, regulations, and procedures.
• The legal system is designed to govern, regulate and control human behaviour

Psychology and the Law

• The relationship between human behaviour and the law, the legal system, and the legal process
• Empirical study of the assumptions about human behaviour that underlie the operation
and functioning of the law.
• the reasonableness and validity of the evidence

Differences between Law and Psychology

- The Law: uses precedent (stare decisis), battle to win the truth, rules, guilty/not guilt
- Psychology: based on what’s new, attempts to find what really happened, uses
predictions, based on many probabilities
Psychology/Law
- Psychology of the law: study of law itself
o Literature search, history, why did laws develop the way they did, screening
jurors for bias, why change things in the law
- Psychology and the law: psychology is used to critically evaluate the assumptions being
in law
o Testing with scientific method, research methods
- Psychology in the law: “explicit and conventional use of psychology” as a tool in the
operation of law
o Expert witness uses challenge of cause because jury was biased, administering
questionnairres to jury, clinical tests to see if someone is fit to stand trial, tests for
cognitive capacity to stand trail
Witnesses as Evidence
- The law of evidence recognizes two types of witnesses
o Common witness to fact (can only give evidence and factual statements)
o Expert witness

Expert Witness
- Those qualified to express a professional opinion, by their training, knowledge, and
experience
- They provide expertise the triers of fact (jurors) do not possess
- Role to assist the court and not the parties instructing them
 - Main difference between experts and regular witnesses:
o Able to give an “opinion” – based on research
o A. talk directly to a fact or consideration at issue
 Competence to stand trail, suggestibility, being sound of mind
o B. perform an educative function (amicus brief)
 Factors that cause an eyewitness to be unreliable, a victim to suggestion,
an abused child is asymptomatic
Who is an Expert?
- UK: A person who through special training, study or experience, is able to furnish the
Court, tribunal, or oral hearing with scientific or technical information which is likely to
be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge, magistrate, convenor, or juror
- USA: Daubert Standard
o a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony
during United States federal legal proceedings
 A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
 A. the expert’s scientific, technical, or otherwise specialized
knowledge will the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue
 B. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
o Body of recent evidence
 C. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
 D. the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case
- Canada: The Canadian Supreme Court has expressly adopted the Daubert standard in R.
v. Mohan
o Mohan Standard: 4 criteria
 It must be relevant
 Necessary to assist he trier of fact
 Should not trigger any exclusionary rules
 Must be given by a proper qualified expert
o Relevance is a question of law and so is determined by the judge (subjective)
o necessary if the expert evidence is outside the experience of a judge and jury
o should be included where the probative value of the evidence outweighs any
prejudicial effect it may cause
Negative Bias
- expert testimony is especially necessary in cases where jurors have little knowledge of
what constitutes the average situations \
Education
 - a great many factors and estimator variables and system variables are unknown to the
layperson and should be brought to their attention to that justice is done
- need neutral education – not advocacy
- testimony should explain general principles relevant to the case
- discuss the data relied upon in coming to the conclusion (and why)
- and the lines of reasoning used to get these data to the conclusion being offered
Social Framework Testimony
- to offset negative bias experts need to present a social framework testimony
- provides background context based on conclusions from psychological research
- designed to inform jurors of something they didn’t already know
- Disabuse them of common but incorrect conceptions concerning the nature of (for
example; sexual abuse, reaction of victims, and the ways trauma can affect memory)
How effective is expert testimony in CSA cases?
- Mock jurors who heard an expert testify rated a child witness as higher on memory
ability, reality monitoring, and resistance to suggestion
o (though verdicts were significantly affected by strength of expert’s evidence and
coherence in presentation)
Criticisms of Expert Testimony (Do not do in amicus brief)
- 1. Taking over the courtroom
o May be not just informing the judge and jury, but as experts, replacing their
decision-making ability
o Expert and authority are two of biggest source factors for persuasion
- 2. Testify to the ultimate issue
o This is an extreme form of the taking over courtroom concern
o The expert not only gives a conclusion the ultimate legal question
- 3. Use of experts corrupts science
o The nature of our adversarial process corrupts the objective nature of science and
bias may be introduced into expert’s testimony
o 7 issues
 Financial gains
 Hired gun effect
 Paid for time, not testimony. Must remain objective
 Extra-forensic relationships
 Friend of lawyer?
 Attorney pressure
 Attorney wants to win, they hired you, and want you to say
something to help their side. But expert is supposed to be objective
and honest. Conflict?
 Political and moral beliefs
  Bias from the expert themselves (death penalty, abortion, political
issues)
 Should be aware of biases and refuse cases where it cant be
managed
 Notoriety
 Media barrage can be attractive
 Run risk of getting to close to fame in high profile cases and lose
objectivity
 Competition
 Trying to trump opposing expert rather than being objective is
biased
 Encouraged in adversarial style
 Lack of recognition of bias
 The biggest problem in any of these sources of bias is not
recognizing it and trying to correct it
 Should always be inn guard
Lecture 2
Eyewitness Testimony
- At early stages of an investigation, eyewitnesses to crimes provide important info,
sometimes only lead
- Memory systems shut off in fight or flight moments, focus on weapon in face not on
suspects face
- Eye witness testimony is most common source of improper convictions
Perception and Memory Limitations
- Our brains do not objectively record data
- Memory is subjective interpretations
- Old information has more influence than new
o Belief perseverance (confirmation bias)
- Sensory input influenced by expectation
Heuristics and Biases
- Heuristics are short-cuts
- Cognitive biases are mental errors (caused by heuristics)
Witness Confidence and Accuracy
- Poor correlation between confidence and accuracy
- Jurors tend to not believe witnesses whose memory for trivial details is poor, but these
are usually the best (most accurate) witnesses
o Why?
 - The more details remembered about the scene, the less details remembered about the face
and victim
- Just because the witness is increasingly confident, DOES NOT mean they are accurate
(can mess with witnesses confidence)
- Discussion or questioning about events can alter or add to memory
Memory Construction
- It is surprisingly easy to distort and/or create memories
- Memory is strongly influenced by our views, attitudes and beliefs at the time of recall
- Psychologists can’t tell the difference between real and implanted memories (particularly
certain memories)
Differences between real and suggested memory
- Subtle differences:
o Actual memories tend to include more sensory details
o Suggested memories include greater references to cognitive processes
- However
o Real and suggested memories are often indistinguishable
 Suggested memories are retrieved as quickly and with as much confidence
as real memories
 Is technically real, just doesn’t contain real information
 Equally likely to be maintained following contradictory info
Schooler (1986)
- One of the most frequently studied sources of memory distortion involves the
consequences of encountering misinformation after witnessing an event
- There are a variety of issues regarding the impact of misinformation
Who is susceptible to misinformation?
- The relationship is complex
- Most susceptible were those with best or the worst memory abilities
- Why?
o The incorporation of misinformation into memory requires two opposite memory
demands
 1. Forgetting the original information
 2. Remember the suggested
 People with great memories remember both really well, the
opposite for people with poor memory
What causes misinfo to be integrated into memory?
- The act of recollection itself, specifically
 o Encouraging the remembering of misinformation reduces access to the original
information
Plausibility and Familiarity
- Plausibility is the apparent validity of the statement
o Increases the perceptions that an experience is correct
- Familiarity is having knowledge with the subject
o Which provides additional details about a possible event
Our preconceptions control our interpretations and memories
Leading Questions Loftus and Palmer (1974)
- Participants watched a video of a minor fender bender
- Five groups of participants were asked separate questions
o Leading questions: how fast were the cars going when they ___ into each other?
 Smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted
 Participants showed: smashed 65km, collided 63km, bumped 61km, hit
54km, and contacted 51km
- Implications for research
o Participants remembered the cars as going faster depending on the language/verb
being used
- Real life implications?
Misinformation Effect
- Happens when a person’s recall of episodic memories becomes less accurate because of
post-event information (retroactive interference: when info gained after event
interference with original memory of event)
o Suggestibility
o Misattribution

Source Misattribution Hypothesis

- When information is retained in memory but the source of the memory is forgotten
- Confusion as to the source of details
o Attributes information to wrong
o “is this something I actually experienced? … or was I told about it?
o Information is actually accurate but source lost
Misinformation Acceptance Hypothesis
- Guess answers based on
o What they heard most recently
o What they think the police or lawyer wants to hear
- And then begin to believe that info
Misleading Cues Loftus (1979)
- Yield sign versus stop sign
- Another car drives up and passes the silver car
- “did another pass the silver car while it was stopped at the (stop/yield) sign?
- For half the participants the detail in consistent
- But for the other half it’s inconsistent
o Was the opposite sign at the intersection the subject had previously seen
- Results: combined control group 75% correct, misinformation effect group 41% correct
- Real life implication: witnesses of car accidents to determine fault of collision
3 Major Factors that Effect Memory
1. System variables
a. Variables that are part of the Justice System
b. Factors over which the police and just system have at least some control
i. E.g., procedures used to select members of line-up, the presentation,
instruction given to witness, conditions in the interview, interview style,
misleading or cueing questions (how people respond to questions is
controlled by interview style)
ii. Use open ended questions
2. Estimator variables
a. Factors that can only be estimated and not controlled
b. Their impact on the accuracy of an identification can only be estimated
i. E.g., physical and temporal context of the crime (distance, lighting,
duration, weather)
ii. Age, gender, emotional state, witness eye-sight, cross racial ID
3. Perception
a. Personal factors can also affect memory
i. We perceive events selectively and use imagination to fill inn the gaps
Eyewitness Evidence
- How confident are you that eyewitness testimony is good? Depends
- What is most common reason for convicting an innocent person? Eyewitness testimony,
100s a year
Loftus (1979)
- Really weak robbery/murder case (mock trail)
o Conviction rate:18%
- Add an eyewitness
o Conviction rate jumps to 72%
- Discredit the witness
o Conviction rate falls to 68%
- Eyewitnesses are therefore very damaging to any case, even if discredited
Confidence and Belief Lindsay, Wells, and Rumpel (1981)
- Viewing conditions versus accuracy of witness
- Witness confidence increases with better viewing conditions
- Jurors believed eyewitness 80% of time, even in poor viewing conditions
- Confidence is not a reliable indicator of accuracy but jurors tend to believe confident
witnesses
Lecture 3
Police Procedures – Interviews, Lineups, Interrogation, and Confessions

Standard witnesses to describe, in their own words, what happened. Who what where why
- No standardization, can cause problems
Police Interviews (Stage 1)
- McLean 1995
o Tape recordings versus written interviews
o Found interesting data:
 1. 50% of questions were leading
 50-50 time between officer and witness (should be loser to 80-20 taking
time for witness, even in interrogations)
 3. Obstructive style
 Officer shouldn’t be interrupting, ask questions at natural pause.
Too much guidance from authority can reduce the depth of the
report
 4. Written report highly edited
 inclusion of contradictory facts and many interviews were missing
relative facts
 5. All 16 were signed as true by the witness
- How can we improve interviews?
o Memory enhancement procedures, e.g. Guided Memory Technique and
Structured Interview
o Cognitive Interview (Enhanced)

Cognitive Interview
- Based on principles of memory storage and retrieval
o Depends on cooperation of witness
o Employs four / five retrieval mnemonics designed to improve recall
 1. Guided imagery
 Context specific memory, cascading effect on memories by
activating tertiary memories
  2. Temporal order
 What was the important event? And what was happening right
before that? And then after? Similar to guided memory, but based
in sequencing. Making it more likely to pull out the story
 3. Report any related matter
 In case other witnesses see something obscure it important to
report all related matter
 4. Recall using different perspectives
 5. Rapport (really is #1 and first priority)
 Relax witness, identify as human beings, genuine, lay down the
rules, open
- Should be 20-30/70-80 talking time for witness
- Flexible
- No interruptions
- Use of open-ended questions
- Empirical evidence shows 35% more useable info
o Measured for correct info, incorrect info, and confabulated info from
plausibility/familiarity
Lineups
- A procedure used to identify suspects by an eyewitness
- Potential for false identification depending on how the line up is administered
- Improving lineups
o How useful? What can happen if not used?
1. Double Blind Procedure
o Can advertently/inadvertently cue witness
 E.g. “take your time” – to tentative description
o Subtle unconscious cues (couching, voice inflection)
o Confirmation bias
o Reinforcement can raise witness confidence levels (witness confidence trumps
accuracy)
2. Instructions to the witness
o “the person you saw commit the crime may or may not be in the photos you are
about to see”
o Present the photos sequentially
o Relative vs absolute judgement
 Relative judgement used when many to pick from, absolute strategy when
looking at sequentially
 Absolute judgement compares to memory
o 1. You are going to see a series of photos to determine whether you can identify
the person you saw commit the robbery last week. Please keep in mind that the
person you saw may or may not be in the photos.
 o 2. You will be shown the photos one at a time and you will not be told how many
photos there are. For each photo, please decide, “Yes that is the person I saw” or
“No,that is not the person I saw.”
o 3. If you say no to a photo you will not be able to return to it later and if you
choose a
photo you will not be allowed to see any remaining photos.
3. Unbiased Lineup
o Matching to Appearance Strategy
o All pictures should be similar
o Source Misattribution and Unconscious Transference
 Recognize face but not from crime
4. Witness Confidence Ratings
o Taken at identification
o Videotaped lineup
o Or a written statement 1-7
5. Blank lineups
o First line up does not have the suspect, second one does
o Removes relative decision making but problematic if the witness selects someone
in the first lineup \
-
Other Identification Procedures
- Cold mugshot search (most criminals look sus)
- Walkthrough procedure
o Show up procedure “Oklahoma lineup”
 Taking witness to area of suspect to see if recognizable
- Composite sketch
o Photo-Fit, Identi-Kit, FACES 4.0
Important aspects to remember
- Confidence is not a reliable indicator of accuracy
- We perceive events selectively and use imagination to fill in the gaps
- Ample evidence that witnesses often choose the wrong person from a lineup
- Discussion or questioning about events can alter or add to memory
- Cross racial identification is harder to do than with race
Procedures with Suspects (Stage 2)
- Interviews
o 80% of criminal cases solved by confession
o In Canada, a confession must be backed up by some other kind of evidence
o R.v. Oickle (2000) – “a confession will not be admissible if it is made under
circumstances that raise a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness”
o Confessions excluded:
  Elicited brute force, prolonged isolation, deprivation of food or sleep,
threats of harm or punishment, promises of immunity or leniency, not
notifying suspect of their constitutional rights
 An admission of guilt is the most damaging evidence that can be presented
at a defendants trail
- Investigator Bias
o Bias that can result when police officers enter an interrogation setting already
believing that the suspect is guilty
o Guilty expectations led to:
 More suspects judged to be guilty
 More pressure exerted on innocent subjects
 Innocent subjects were seen as much more defensive
 Looks like confirmation of guilt (confirmation bias)
Interviews with Suspects
- Suspect vs. witness
o Assumed suspect is lying and assumed witness is always telling truth
- Torture vs. soft sell (environment and locus of control)
- Brainwashing
- England does not use many techniques popular in NA
PEACE Model (similar to cognitive interview enhanced but at different times in case)
- Planning and preparation
o Plan the interview, involve prosecution evidence
 Identify specific areas requiring investigation, develop points to prove
defense, and develop points to negate defenses. As well as points that
disprove their connection and prove their defense
- Engage and explain (Rapport building)
o Interview preamble
o Engage: establish rapport with suspect and introduce circumstance (trying to
eliminate you as a suspect)
o Explain: outline the reasons for the interview
 Rights of suspect
- Account
o Interviewees recollection of events
o Should allow the suspect to give their version without interruption by the officer
o Problem?
- Closure
o To maintain interviewer-interviewee relationship
o Thanks
o Understanding
o Questions
 - Evaluation
o Evaluate interview
o Make sure objective were met
o If needed, create new interview based on evaluation
o Use to improve technique for next time
Inquisitorial vs accusatorial – conversation management and information gathering
- Videotaping of interrogations
Interrogations
- Good cop/bad cop (often one person flipping back and forth)
- Minimization techniques (soft sell) -- false sense of security e.g., sympathy, excuses
- Maximization techniques (scare tactics) – intimidation e.g., exaggerate seriousness, lie
about evidence
- Rapport Building – flattery, offer a drink, be your friend, show respect
-
The Environment
- Sound proof and visually isolated to promote a low locus of control and the feeling of
withdrawn isolation
- Vare, no ornamentation, two chairs and a desk
- No outside communication
- Sit close in armless straight-backed chairs at equal eye level
Reid Model of Interrogations
a. Gather evidence related to crime and interview witnesses and victims (stage 1)
b. Conduct a non-accusatorial interview of the suspect (evidence of deception)(stage
2)
c. Conduct an accusatorial interrogation of the suspect (nine-step procedure)(stage
3)
Stage 1: Factual Analysis
- Eliminate improbable suspects
- Develop possible suspects or leads
- Increase confidence in identifying truthful or guilty suspects through the interview
process
- Identify proper interrogation strategies
Stage 2: The Behavior Analysis Interview
- Witnesses, victims, and supect
- Behaviour provoking -- in NA not in PEACE Model. May bring up something personal
or moral
Stage 3: Reid Model of Interrogations
- Active persuasion by moral justification, discourages denials, progresses toward an
admission of guilt
1) Confront suspect with their guilt
2) Justify, rationalize, or excuse the crime
3) Interrupt any denials immediately – more often a suspect denies guilt the harder it is to
get a confession
4) Overcome objections when suspect becomes quiet and withdrawn
5) Minimize withdrawal by moving closer
6) Offer sympathy, empathy, understanding and make appeals to decency and morality
7) Offer face-saving explanations to make self-incrimination easier
8) When there is any agreement with face-saving explanation, develop admissions into full
confessions
9) Get a written and signed confession
Problems with the Reid Model
1) Detecting deception is extremely difficult and often inaccurate
2) Investigator bias – confirmation bias
3) False confessions
False Confessions
- False confessions account for the most wrongful convictions after eyewitness
misidentification , but more powerful than an eyewitness identification
Confessions
- An admission of guilt is the most damaging evidence that can be presented at a
defendant’s trail
- R.v. Oickle (2000) – “a confession will be admissible if it is made under circumstances
that raise a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness”
False Confessions
- Voluntary false confession
o For protection, reward, alibi, fear, fame
- Coerced-Complaint false confession
o Escape or reward (instrumental reasons)
o Induced learned helplessness
- Coerced-internalized false confession
o Creation of false memories
Coerced-Internalized False Confessions
1) History of substance abuse or interference with brain function
2) Inability to detect discrepancies between what was observed and what was suggested
 3) Mental state factors: severe anxiety, confusion and shock, feelings of guilt (survivor’s
guilt)
- Compliance – the Gudjonsson Compliance Scale
o eagerness to please others
o desire to avoid conflict and confrontation
 some evidence suggests you can reliably differentiate between “resistors”
and “false confessors”
 short story presented – 20 questions administered, 15 misleading
 told there are errors and must ask again
 anxiety increases – suggestibility increases
 IQ decreases – suggestibility increases
 Yield – susceptibility to give in to leading questions
 Shift – tendency to when alter answers when put under pressure by
an interviewer
Impact of False Confessions (Kassin and Sukei 1997)
- Three versions of a trail, each with an introduced confession
- Decide verdict when the confession was:
o 1. Elicited under low or high pressure interrogation
o 2. Ruled admissible or inadmissible
o 3. OR a control group with no confession
- When asked about the case, jurors saw the high pressure confession as:
o 1. Less voluntary
o 2. Correctly recalled the judge’s ruling (admissible or inadmissible)
o 3. And reported it had less influence on their decisions
- What happened with the verdict?
o Confession increased guilty rates
 Even when it was coerced
 Even when it was stricken from the record
 Even when jurors said it had no influence
o Fundamental attribution error: when someone else does something its because of
their disposition, though when we do something its because of situational
circumstances
 Juror only see confession
Lecture 4: Deception Detecting

What is deception?
- An act intended to foster in another a belief or understanding which the deceiver
considers to be false
- Unintentionally misremembering is not lying
Degrees of Deception
- Falsification: everything being told is contrary to the truth (poor strategy)
- Distortions: the truth is altered to fit the liar’s goal (more common strategy)
o Memory naturally gets distorted
- Concealments: the liar holds back the truth
So how do we potentially catch liars?
- Approaches using “tells”:
o Emotional Approach
 Ekman 2001
 Premise that lying causes emotions that differ from those experienced
while telling the truth
 E.g. may feel fear of being judged as not being truthful
o May differ based on context
 Experiencing emotions when lying can have behavioural
consequences
 Fear of apprehension causes the experience of stress and arousal
o Resulting in; higher pitched voice, increased blushing,
sweating, speech errors, guilt causes you to avert your gaze
 Leakage Hypothesis:
 The stronger the emotions experienced by the liars, the more likely
that these emotions will “leak”, leaving visible traces in demeanor
 Problems?
o Innocent person would have all of these symptoms. Who is
more nervous? Innocent or guilty person.
o What is each individual’s baseline?
o Cognitive Load Approach
 Vrij et al., 2008
 Premise that lying is more cognitively demanding than telling the
truth
o Have to provide a consistent story
o Detailed enough to appear based on something self-
experienced
o But simple enough to be remembered
 Result shows that cognitively demanding tasks can result in:
o Gaze aversion (it can be distracting to look at the
conversation partner), fewer body movements, long pauses
 Problems?
 Attempted Control Approach (Vrij, 2004)
  Liars may be aware that internal processes could result in cues to
deception
 So they try to minimize these cues
 Ironically, this sometimes leads to overcompensation – creating
different cues to deception (overly stiff impression)
 Problems?
Objective Cues to Deception
- The previous approaches have been extensively analyzed through meta-analysis
- The results aren’t encouraging, but more important findings
o A. reliable cues to deception are scarce
o B. behaviours that are actually related to deception lack strong predictive value
- Found
o Liars seem to be somewhat more tense than truth-tellers
 Pupils more dilated, pitch of voice higher, appearance more tense and
nervous, less cooperative, faces perceived as less pleasant
- Stories:
o Liars talk for shorter time, include fewer details, stories make less sense
 Less plausible, less logically structured, and more ambivalent
o Sound more uncertain
 Less direct, relevant, and personal
- Details:
o Liars spontaneously correct themselves
o Admit not remembering to lesser extent
 Therefore lacking normal imperfections of truthful accounts
Deception Detection Accuracy
- So, how well do you think people do?
o With few exceptions, accuracy levels fall between 45% and 60%
o In meta-analysis, average accuracy is 54% (basically chance)
- What about trained lie experts?
o Police, judges, customs officers
 Have experience and believe they’re better than the average person
 Accuracy levels fall between 45% and 60%
Misconceptions
- There are wrong beliefs about the characteristics of deceptive behaviour
- There is a lack of overlap between objective (actual cues) and subjective cues (what we
think is associated with deception)
- Gaze aversion, hesitations, slower speech rates, longer and more frequent pauses,
increase in smiling and hand/finger and leg/foot movements are highly correlated with
nervousness
 - In addition, studies show that liars aren’t necessarily more nervous than truth-tellers
- Inquisitorial style better for rooting out liars
Reid Technique Manual on Lying
- Using the Reid manual to catch liars can result in deception detection accuracy rates
exceeding 80%
o Nothing empirically supporting claim, study challenges claim
- Kassin and Fong (1999)
o Randomly assigned to control or training in catching deception with the Reid
manual
o Group who received training
 More confident and had more reasons for their judgements
o Control group had an accuracy level of 56% (not too much better than chance)
o Trained group had an accuracy level of 46% (worse)
o Exposure to use of the cues recommended is not only inefficient but directly
counterproductive in improving accuracy in detecting deception and truth
o 500,000 people working in law enforcement and other agencies have been trained
in this technique
Detecting Deception from Verbal Content
- Statement Validity Analysis – can also be used for witnesses
o Most widely used technique based on verbal content. Compares innocent and
guilty, better baseline for predictions
o Premise: if a statement is based on the memory of an actual experience, it will
differ in content and quality from a statement based on fabrication
o Four stage procedure
 1. Thorough analysis of the case-file (regular proper police procedure)
 2. Semi-structured interview based on information gleaned from evidence
(audio-taped and transcribed)
 Basically a cognitive interview enhanced for suspects
 3. Criteria-based content analysis (CBCA)
 19 criteria grouped into 5 categories
o General characteristics (logical structure, told in none
chronological order)
o Specific contents (5 senses
o Peculiarities of content
o Motivation-related contents
o Offence-specific elements
 4. Validity checklist
 The presence of each of the 19 criteria is rated
o 0-absent, 1=present, 2=strongly present
o The higher the score, the more truth
 o Test searches for truth, and if no truth telling than maybe its
lies
 The more criteria present and the stronger the presence of each
criterion, the stronger the support for the hypothesis that the
statement is based on genuine personal experience
 Does it work?
 In a review of 37 studies
 Overall accuracy of 73%
o And proved equally good for detecting truthful and
fabricated accounts
- Reality Monitoring
o The process by which people distinguish memories of real events from memories
of imagined events
o Premise is that real memories are products of perceptual process, whereas
imagined are products of reflective processes
o Real events, from perceptual processes, tend to contain more perceptual
information
 Tastes, touch, smells
o And contextual information
 Spatial and temporal details
o Imagined events, from reflective processes, tend to contain more reflective,
cognitive information
 I must have been tired because it was late, versus I felt tired
o So if RM works for distinguishing one’s own real and imagined events, perhaps it
can be used to distinguish other people’s real and imagined events
 Truthful versus deceptive accounts for example (suspects)
 Or perhaps even false misinformation (eyewitnesses)
o With this in mind, overall accuracy rate found to be 75%
 And equally accurate in detecting truths and lies
 Based on well-established theoretical framework
 Easy to learn and use
 The RM technique could be an interesting complement (or alternative) to
CBCA
Psychophysiological Detection of Deception
- The polygraph
- The Control Question Test
- The Guilty Knowledge or Concealed Information Test
Polygraph
- Measures and records blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity
- The suspect is asked and answers series of questions
 - Premise is that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be from
non-deceptive
- In the 1987 decision of R.v. Beland, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of
polygraph results as evidence in court
- This decision did not, however, affect the use of the polygraph in criminal investigations
- The polygraph continues to be used as an investigative tool
- In Canada, the polygraph is regularly used as a forensic tool in
o The investigation of criminal acts
o Sometimes used to screen employees of government organizations
Control Question Test
- A method of polygraph testing that compares reactions to control questions concerning
past transgressions to questions relevant to the crime under investigation
- A guilty person should react more strongly to relevant questions
- Start with rapport building and get basic info
o Questions are formulated and the subject and examiner discuss the questions
o Then the tester will explain how the polygraph works, emphasizing that it can
detect lies and that it is important to answer truthfully
o Tell subject which questions are control and which are relevant to crime
- “Stim test” is often conducted: the subject is asked to deliberately lie and then the tester
reports that he was able to detect this lie
o Now run the question phase several times and average answers. Why?
- Types of questions:
o “Irrelevant” or IR (“is your name Will?”)
o “probable-lie” control questions that most people will lie about (“have you ever
stolen money?”)
 Meant to elicit small response, this provides another physiological
baseline
o “relevant questions” concerning the crime
Validity
- The control question test is quite good at classifying guilty subjects
- Studies show an accuracy rate ranging from 80 to 91%
- The problem is that accuracy rates are lower for innocent subjects
- There is a tendency for false positives (finding an innocent person deceptive)
- The CQT may be vulnerable to being conducted in an interrogation-like fashion
- This kind of interrogation style would elicit a nervous response from innocent and guilty
suspects alike
The Guilty Knowledge or Concealed Information Test
- Aims to detect concealed knowledge only the guilty suspect has
- Suspects are given multiple choice questions about the crime
 o A guilty suspect should experience more physiological arousal to a correct a
correct choice that only a guilty person would know
GKT or CIT
- What weapon was used to kill Mr. Burns?
o A. a knife
o B. a gun
o C. scissors
o D. a baseball bat
- The assumption is that only a guilty suspect would recognize the correct answer
- They don’t have to answer, as the answers are being read, the polygraph records their
reaction
- In contrast, an innocent person should react the same to all the answers, since they lack
‘guilty knowledge’
- Combination of GKT/CIT and control question test would help

Validity
- The GKT or CIT seems to be much better at accuracy
- In an overview by studies
o 83-96% of innocent suspects were identified
o 59-80% 0f guilty suspects were identified
Potentially Problems with GKT
- The multiple choice cannot be biased
o The right answer cannot stand out
- Innocent suspects MUST Not know the correct alternative
o Media effects, especially in the States
- Guilty suspects MUST know the correct alternative
o May use a detail the actual suspect missed

Final Problems
- Countermeasures
o Drugs, tack in shoe, coin between butt cheeks