警察应该使用硫酸吗?使用成绩单和录音进行培训和可信度评估

Kevin R. Colwell, Neslihan James-Kangal, Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman, Vivian Phelan
{"title":"警察应该使用硫酸吗?使用成绩单和录音进行培训和可信度评估","authors":"Kevin R. Colwell, Neslihan James-Kangal, Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman, Vivian Phelan","doi":"10.1080/15228932.2015.1035187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a need for an applicable system of investigative interviewing and credibility assessment that extends science to practice. Experiment 1: Officers assessed the credibility of colleagues in a face-to-face interaction. Fourteen of sixteen officers were wrong in determining whether their colleague was responding honestly to them or lying to them. Experiment 2 compared untrained officers to officers trained in Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) in their ability to assess the credibility of statements regarding real and mock crimes by analyzing either verbatim transcripts or audio recordings. Officers who were trained in ACID performed significantly better after training than before, and significantly better than a group of officers who were never trained in ACID (89% correct versus 53% correct). No differences emerged due to analyzing transcripts versus recordings. The practical aspects of these results are discussed, including success rate, ease of application, and ease of training. The theoretical discussion includes differential recall enhancement and impression management. Finally, limitations and suggestions for future research are presented.","PeriodicalId":89973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","volume":"15 1","pages":"226 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2015.1035187","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should Police Use ACID? Training and Credibility Assessment Using Transcripts Versus Recordings\",\"authors\":\"Kevin R. Colwell, Neslihan James-Kangal, Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman, Vivian Phelan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15228932.2015.1035187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is a need for an applicable system of investigative interviewing and credibility assessment that extends science to practice. Experiment 1: Officers assessed the credibility of colleagues in a face-to-face interaction. Fourteen of sixteen officers were wrong in determining whether their colleague was responding honestly to them or lying to them. Experiment 2 compared untrained officers to officers trained in Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) in their ability to assess the credibility of statements regarding real and mock crimes by analyzing either verbatim transcripts or audio recordings. Officers who were trained in ACID performed significantly better after training than before, and significantly better than a group of officers who were never trained in ACID (89% correct versus 53% correct). No differences emerged due to analyzing transcripts versus recordings. The practical aspects of these results are discussed, including success rate, ease of application, and ease of training. The theoretical discussion includes differential recall enhancement and impression management. Finally, limitations and suggestions for future research are presented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic psychology practice\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"226 - 247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2015.1035187\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic psychology practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1035187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1035187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

有必要建立一套适用的调查访谈和可信度评估系统,将科学推广到实践中。实验一:警官们在面对面的交流中评估同事的可信度。16名警官中有14名在判断他们的同事是在诚实地回答他们还是对他们撒谎时犯了错误。实验2比较了未经训练的警官和接受过欺骗评估标准(ACID)训练的警官通过分析逐字记录或录音来评估真实和模拟犯罪陈述可信度的能力。接受过ACID培训的警官在培训后的表现明显好于培训前,也明显好于从未接受过ACID培训的警官(89%对53%)。分析文本和录音没有发现差异。讨论了这些结果的实际方面,包括成功率、应用的便利性和培训的便利性。理论讨论包括差异回忆增强和印象管理。最后,提出了未来研究的局限性和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should Police Use ACID? Training and Credibility Assessment Using Transcripts Versus Recordings
There is a need for an applicable system of investigative interviewing and credibility assessment that extends science to practice. Experiment 1: Officers assessed the credibility of colleagues in a face-to-face interaction. Fourteen of sixteen officers were wrong in determining whether their colleague was responding honestly to them or lying to them. Experiment 2 compared untrained officers to officers trained in Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) in their ability to assess the credibility of statements regarding real and mock crimes by analyzing either verbatim transcripts or audio recordings. Officers who were trained in ACID performed significantly better after training than before, and significantly better than a group of officers who were never trained in ACID (89% correct versus 53% correct). No differences emerged due to analyzing transcripts versus recordings. The practical aspects of these results are discussed, including success rate, ease of application, and ease of training. The theoretical discussion includes differential recall enhancement and impression management. Finally, limitations and suggestions for future research are presented.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信