When is a lie not a lie? When it’s divergent: Examining lies and deceptive responses in a police interview

Article English OPEN
Carter, Elisabeth (2014)
  • Publisher: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto

Using UK police interviews as data, this empirical work seeks to explore and explain the interactional phenomena that accompany, distinguish, and are drawn upon by suspects in performing deceptive talk.\ud It explores the effects of the myriad and often conflicting interactional requirements of turntaking, preference organisation and conversational maxims on the suspect’s talk, alongside the practical interactional choices of a suspect attempting to avoid revealing his guilt.\ud This paper reveals a close link between the officer’s and suspect’s interaction and the patterned organisation of an assortment of divergent utterances produced in response to probing questions that follow a lie.\ud The findings expose a hierarchical interactional order that explains the diverse and conflicting accounts of cues to deception in this field, suggesting that interactional phenomena are systematically enlisted in the orientating to, and the violation of interactional organisation which enables the suspect to produce utterances that protect his position, and can also be directed towards the performance of wider objectives such as reinforcing a claim of innocence or supporting a version of events.
  • References (12)
    12 references, page 1 of 2

    Anolli, L., Balconi, M. and Ciceri, R. (2002) 'Linguistic styles in deceptive communication: dubitative ambiguity and elliptic eluding in packaged lies' Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 31(7).

    Carter, E. (2008) Policing talk: An investigation into the interaction of the officer and the suspect in the police interview. PhD: University of Essex.

    Carter, E. (2013) Analysing police interviews: Laughter, Confessions and the Tape. London: Continuum.

    Battista, P. (2009) 'Deceivers' responses to challenges of their truthfulness: Differences between familiar and unfamiliar lies'. Communication Quarterly 45(4): 319-334.

    Buller, D. B. and Burghoon, J. K. (1996) 'Interpersonal Deception Theory' Communication Theory 6: 203-242.

    DePaulo, B. M., Lindsey, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charton, K. and Cooper, H. (2003) 'Cues to Deception' Psychological Bulletin 129(1): 74-118.

    Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Duran, N. D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M. and McNamara, D. S. (2010) 'The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies'. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(03): 439-462.

    Ekman, P. Sullivan, M. Friesen, W. and Scherer, K. (1991) 'Face, voice and body in detecting deception'. Journal of Non-verbal Behaviour 15(2):125-135.

    Frank, M. G. and Feeley, T. H. (2003) 'To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training'. Journal of Applied Communication Research 31: 58-75.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    CREST Repository - IRUS-UK 0 35
Share - Bookmark