Citation

Morgan CA, Colwell K, Hazlett GA. J. Forensic Sci. 2011; 56(5): 1227-1234.

Affiliation

Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 234 Church Street, Suite #301, New Haven, CT 06510. National Center for PTSD, VA Connecticut Healthcare Systems, 950 Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT 06516. Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, 1500 N. Patterson Street, Valdosta, GA 31602. Woodard-Cody Specialty Consultants, Inc., 4115 Hulon Drive, Durham, NC 27705.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, American Society for Testing and Materials, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01896.x

PMID

21854383

Abstract

  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. A total of 35 military participants were assigned to truthful or deceptive eyewitness conditions. Genuine eyewitness 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%. FSA methods may be effective in real-world circumstances and have relevance to professionals in law enforcement, security, and criminal justice.

Language: en