Purpose. Research on real-life suspect interviews shows that disclosure of evidenceis a very common tactic and that it occurs in all phases of the interview. It istherefore remarkable that there is hardly any research on the effectiveness of differentdisclosure tactics. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of three differentdisclosure tactics: presenting the evidence early and two versions of the Strategic Useof Evidence (SUE) technique.Methods. For the SUE-Basic technique (SUE-B), the evidence was disclosed late inthe interview. For the SUE-Incremental technique (SUE-I), we used a stepwise disclosuretactic derived from the so-called Evidence Framing Matrix. The tactic consists of revealingevidence of increasing strength and precision. A mock-theft scenario was employedwith 195 participants who were randomly allocated to one of six conditions: guilty orinnocent suspects were interviewed with one of the three techniques. Two measures ofinconsistency were used as dependent variables: statement-evidence inconsistency andthe newly developed within-statement inconsistency.Results. By interviewing with SUE-I, strong cues to deception were elicited, especiallyfor the statement-evidence inconsistency variable. For the SUE-B, significant but smallerdifferences between guilty and innocent suspects were obtained.Conclusions. We found that both when and how the evidence was disclosedmoderated the effectiveness of disclosure. With respect to when, it was more effectiveto disclose the evidence late (vs. early), and with respect to how, it was more effective todisclose the evidence in a stepwise (vs. direct) manner. The tactical aspects of evidencedisclosure are discussed.