Efficacy of Forensic Statement Analysis in Distinguishing Truthful From Deceptive Eyewitness Accounts of Highly Stressful Events

• NCJ Number: 236196
• Journal: Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 56 Issue: 5 Dated: September 2011 Pages: 1227-1234
• Author(s): Charles A. Morgan III, M.D., M.A.; Kevin Colwell, Ph.D.; Gary A. Hazlett, Psy.D.
• Date Published: September 2011
• Length: 8 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Defense; National Ctr for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Dept of Veterans Affairs
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Laboratory-based detecting-deception research suggests that truthful statements differ from those of deceptive statements. This nonlaboratory study tested whether forensic statement analysis (FSA) methods would distinguish genuine from false eyewitness accounts about exposure to a highly stressful event.

Abstract

A total of 35 military participants were assigned to truthful or deceptive eyewitness conditions. Genuine eyewitnesses reported truthfully about exposure to interrogation stress. Deceptive eyewitnesses studied transcripts of genuine eyewitnesses for 24 h and falsely claimed they had been interrogated. Cognitive Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and assessed by FSA raters blind to the status of participants. Genuine accounts contained more unique words, external and contextual referents, and a greater total word count than did deceptive statements. The type-token ratio was lower in genuine statements. The classification accuracy using FSA techniques was 82 percent. FSA methods may be effective in real-world circumstances and have relevance to professionals in law enforcement, security, and criminal justice. (Published Abstract)