Impression management strategies of deceivers and honest reporters in an investigative interview

Understanding the subjective experience of respondents attempting to convince an investigator will enhance our theoretical knowledge of deception and improve assessment techniques. Discrepancies between respondents’ understanding and actual credibility criteria are especially important. Sixty-six participants engaged in a small crime, and were interviewed following a week’s preparation. All were provided incentive for convincing the interviewer of the veracity of their statement. Thirty-two were honestly reporting the theft, and thirty-four were responding to avoid being found guilty. After a Reality Interview (a derivative of the Cognitive Interview), participants were asked to describe what was important in convincing the interviewer through open-ended and Likert-type questions. These strategies of impression management are presented here. The basic task of convincing appeared similar for both groups, with participants focused on providing clear and careful stories without contradictions rather than attempting to provide vivid and spontaneously-constructed statements. Deceivers attached more importance to: 1) preparing in advance, 2) monitoring and controlling information, and 3) maintaining eye contact. Honest respondents were more concerned with providing correct peripheral detail. Importantly, both groups were reporting much more similarity than difference, and the strategies described are not likely to succeed against verbal content analysis.

Background & Context

Understanding how suspects attempt to appear credible during investigative interviews represents a critical but underexplored dimension of deception research. While most deception detection research has focused on objective behavioral or verbal cues, this 2010 study examined the subjective experience of 66 participants who engaged in a simulated theft and were interviewed after a week's preparation, with all receiving incentives to convince the interviewer of their truthfulness.

The research addresses a fundamental gap in understanding the psychological processes underlying impression management during investigative interviews. Honest respondents are free to access their memory for the target event, while deceivers must avoid accessing the actual event and instead focus on their carefully created script. This distinction has important implications for interview techniques that exploit differences in cognitive processing between truthful and deceptive respondents.

The study builds on the Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) system and Reality Monitoring theory, which posit that genuine memories contain more detail and follow less rigid structures than fabricated accounts. By examining what strategies respondents believe are effective—versus what actually enhances credibility—the research reveals critical mismatches between folk psychology and empirical evidence.

Research Design & Methodology

Sixty-six participants engaged in a small crime and were interviewed following a week's preparation, with 32 honestly reporting the theft and 34 responding to avoid being found guilty; after a Reality Interview (a derivative of the Cognitive Interview), participants described what was important in convincing the interviewer through open-ended and Likert-type questions.

The Reality Interview protocol incorporated memory-enhancing techniques designed to facilitate differential recall between honest and deceptive respondents. All participants received equal incentive to appear credible, creating experimental conditions that parallel real-world interrogations where both guilty and innocent suspects are motivated to convince investigators. The week-long preparation period allowed deceivers to rehearse their accounts, mirroring the preparation that might occur before actual police interviews.

Key methodological features included:

• Mock crime scenario involving a staged theft under time pressure
• One-week delay between event and interview, allowing preparation time
• Reality Interview protocol combining free recall and mnemonic techniques
• Post-interview assessment using both open-ended questions and Likert-scale ratings of strategy importance

Results & Key Findings

The basic task of convincing appeared similar for both groups, with participants focused on providing clear and careful stories without contradictions rather than attempting to provide vivid and spontaneously-constructed statements; deceivers attached more importance to preparing in advance, monitoring and controlling information, and maintaining eye contact.

Deceivers reported significantly higher emphasis on mental preparation and rehearsing statements to avoid mistakes (M=5.8) compared to honest respondents (M=3.6). This finding reveals a fundamental strategic difference: deceivers were more free to present details, while liars were more concerned with controlling or tracking detail content and with giving the appearance of being honest.

Key strategic differences included:

• Advance preparation: Deceivers rated rehearsal as critically important, investing substantial effort in creating and memorizing lie scripts
• Information control: Liars focused intensively on monitoring what they revealed, avoiding contradictions or sensitive details
• Eye contact: Deceivers believed maintaining direct eye contact was essential to appearing honest
• Peripheral details: Honest respondents were more concerned with providing correct peripheral detail

Importantly, both groups reported far more similarity than difference in their approaches, generally emphasizing clarity and consistency over vividness and spontaneity—strategies that paradoxically work against what verbal content analysis criteria actually reward.

Discussion & Significance

The findings reveal a critical disconnect between what respondents believe will make them appear credible and what actually differentiates honest from deceptive statements. Reality Monitoring research reveals that internally generated memories contain less detail than genuine memories, and the ACID system posits that honest statements will be more vivid (longer and richer in detail) than deceptive statements. Yet both groups in this study prioritized avoiding contradictions over providing rich, spontaneous detail.

This disconnect has important theoretical implications. Deceivers' emphasis on control and rehearsal aligns with Information Manipulation Theory, which suggests deception requires greater cognitive effort to manage. Deceivers were more concerned with controlling or tracking detail content and with giving the appearance of being honest, while honest respondents exhibited less concern about precision and more freedom in accessing peripheral memories.

The study demonstrates that the strategies deceivers employ—particularly their reliance on prepared scripts and information control—make them vulnerable to interview techniques that require spontaneous elaboration or multiple recall attempts. The Reality Interview's use of mnemonics and repeated questioning specifically targets these strategic weaknesses, forcing deceivers away from their rehearsed narratives.

Limitations & Considerations

The laboratory analog design, while offering experimental control, limits ecological validity. Participants faced no genuine legal consequences, and the mock crime lacked the emotional intensity of real criminal investigations. The one-week preparation period may not reflect typical real-world scenarios where suspects face immediate questioning or have longer periods to construct alibis.

The study examined impression management strategies in isolation from actual credibility assessment outcomes. While participants reported what they believed was important, the research did not directly test whether these strategies actually succeeded in convincing interviewers. Additionally, the sample consisted of university participants who may differ from actual criminal suspects in cognitive abilities, cultural background, and familiarity with deception detection methods.

Practical Applications

The findings offer actionable insights for investigative interviewers. Since deceivers overemphasize rehearsal and control while undervaluing spontaneous detail production, interview protocols that require extensive elaboration, unexpected questioning, or repeated recall will exploit these strategic commitments. Techniques like the Cognitive Interview, Reality Interview, and Strategic Use of Evidence can capitalize on deceivers' focus on staying "on script" by forcing them into spontaneous responses where their lack of genuine memory becomes apparent.

For suspects and their counsel, the research reveals that common-sense strategies for appearing truthful—rehearsing stories, controlling information, and maintaining eye contact—may paradoxically undermine credibility when subjected to sophisticated verbal content analysis. The mismatch between folk beliefs about credibility and empirical criteria suggests that training in actual credibility indicators would be necessary to effectively counter modern interview techniques, though such countermeasures raise ethical concerns about compromising investigative validity.