Full bibliography

Should police use ACID? Training and credibility assessment using transcripts versus recordings

Resource type
Authors/contributors
Title
Should police use ACID? Training and credibility assessment using transcripts versus recordings
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.
Publication
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice
Date
MAY 27 2015
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
226-247
Journal Abbr
J. Forensic Psychol. Pract.
Citation Key
ISI:000356277400003
ISSN
1522-8932
Language
English
Extra
11 citations (Crossref) [2023-10-31] Citation Key: ISI:000356277400003 Citation Key Alias: lens.org/172-830-993-603-666 tex.eissn: [object Object] tex.unique-id: [object Object]
Citation
Colwell, K., James-Kangal, N., Hiscock-Anisman, C., & Phelan, V. (2015). Should police use ACID? Training and credibility assessment using transcripts versus recordings. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(3), 226–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1035187