This paper presents the results of a bibliometric study providing a comprehensive overview of the social science research conducted on criminal interrogations and investigative interviews since the 1900s. The objectives are to help researchers to further understand the research field, to better communicate research findings to practitioners, to help practitioners understand the breadth of scientific knowledge on criminal interrogations and investigative interviews, and to foster dialog between researchers and practitioners. To begin, after a brief description of Web of Science, we describe how we developed our database on criminal interrogations and investigative interviews. Then, we report the yearly evolution of articles, the journals where they were published, the research areas covered by this research field, as well as the authors, the institutions and the countries that published the most on a variety of topics related to criminal interrogations and investigative interviews. Finally, we present the most used keywords and the most cited articles, and examine the research on questionable tactics and techniques in the research field of criminal interrogations and investigative interviews. This paper ends with a critical look at the results, for the benefit of researchers and practitioners interested in criminal interrogations and investigative interviews.

Aim: Research on deception detection has usually been executed in experimental settings in the laboratory. In contrast, the present research investigates deception detection by actual victims and near victims of fraud, as reported in their own words.

Materials and methods: Our study is based on a nationally representative survey of 11 types of (mostly) online fraud victimization (N = 2,864). We used qualitative information from actual victims and near victims on why they didn’t fall for the fraud, or how, in hindsight, it could have been prevented.

Results: The main detection strategies mentioned by near victims (N = 958) were 1) fraud knowledge (69%): these near victims clearly recognized fraud. Other strategies related to fraud knowledge were: noticing mistakes (27.9%), rules and principles about safe conduct (11.7%), and personal knowledge (7.1%). A second type of strategy was distrust (26.1%). A third strategy was ‘wise through experience’ (1.6%). Finally, a limited number of respondents (7.8%) searched for additional information: they contacted other people (5.5%), sought information online (4%), contacted the fraudster (2.9%), contacted their bank or credit card company (2.2%), or contacted the police (0.2%). Using knowledge as a strategy decreases the probability of victimization by a factor of 0.43. In contrast, all other strategies increased the likelihood of victimization by a factor of 1.6 or more. Strategies generally were uncorrelated, several strategies differed by type of fraud. About 40% of the actual victims (N = 243) believed that their victimization might have been prevented by: 1) seeking information (25.2%), 2) paying more attention (18.9%), 3) a third party doing something (16.2%), 4) following safety rules or principles, like using a safer way of paying or trading (14.4%), or by 5) ‘simply not going along with it’ (10.8%). Most of these strategies were associated with a higher, not lower, likelihood of victimization.

Conclusion: Clearly, knowledge of fraud is the best strategy to avoid fraud victimization. Therefore, a more proactive approach is needed to inform the public about fraud and attackers’ modus operandi, so that potential victims already have knowledge of fraud upon encountering it. Just providing information online will not suffice to protect online users.