No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Verbal cues to deceit when lying through omitting information
Abstract
Background
Lying through omitting information has been neglected in verbal lie detection research. The task is challenging: Can we decipher from the truthful information a lie teller provides that s/he is hiding something? We expected this to be the case because of lie tellers’ inclination to keep their stories simple. We predicted lie tellers to provide fewer details and fewer complications than truth tellers, the latter particularly after exposure to a Model Statement.
Method
A total of 44 truth tellers and 41 lie tellers were interviewed about a conversation (debriefing interview) they had taken part in earlier. Lie tellers were asked not to discuss one aspect of that debriefing interview.
Results
Results showed that truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers after exposure to a Model Statement.
Conclusion
Ideas about future research in lying through omissions are discussed.
... They then delivered the package to the Data Analyst in a room at the department. Similar missions were carried out in previous research [36,52]. ...
Background:
Sketching while narrating is an effective interview technique for eliciting information and cues to deceit. The current research examined the effects of introducing a Model Sketch in investigative interviews andis pre-registered on https://osf.io/kz9mc (accessed on 18 January 2022).
Methods:
Participants (N = 163) completed a mock mission and were asked to tell the truth or to lie about it in an interview. In Phase 1 of the interview, participants provided either a free recall (control condition), sketched and narrated with exposure to a Model Sketch (Model Sketch-present condition), or sketched and narrated without exposure to a Model Sketch (Model Sketch-absent condition). In Phase 2, all participants provided a free recall without sketching.
Results:
Truth tellers reported significantly more information than lie tellers. The Model Sketch elicited more location details than a Free recall in Phase 1 and more veracity differences than the other Modality conditions in Phase 2.
Conclusion:
The Model Sketch seems to enhance the elicitation of information and to have carryover veracity effects in a follow-up free recall.
... They argued that when lying through omitting information, where the information lie tellers provide is entirely truthful, lie tellers may use the same strategy as they use when telling total falsehoods: 'to keep it simple'. Leal et al. (2020) thus hypothesised that even in lying through omissions scenarios, lie tellers still may include fewer details and fewer complications in their accounts than truth tellers. No difference emerged for total details but lie tellers indeed included fewer complications in their statements than truth tellers. ...
Over the last 30 years deception researchers have changed their attention from observing nonverbal behaviour to analysing speech content. However, many practitioners we speak to are reluctant to make the change from nonverbal to verbal lie detection. In this article we present what practitioners believe is problematic about verbal lie detection: the interview style typically used is not suited for verbal lie detection; the most diagnostic verbal cue to deceit (total details) is not suited for lie detection purposes; practitioners are looking for signs of deception but verbal deception researchers are mainly examining cues that indicate truthfulness; cut-off points (decision rules to decide when someone is lying) do not exist; different verbal indicators are required for different types of lie; and verbal veracity indicators may be culturally defined. We discuss how researchers could address these problems. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Interviewees sometimes deliberately omit reporting some information. Such omission lies differ from other lies because all the information interviewees present may be entirely truthful. Truth tellers and lie tellers carried out a mission. Truth tellers reported the entire mission truthfully. Lie tellers were also entirely truthful but left out one element of the mission. In truth tellers’ statements, only the parts that lie tellers were also asked to recall were analysed. Interviews were carried out via the Cognitive Credibility Assessment, Reality Interview, or standard interview protocol. Dependent variables were the details, complications and verifiable sources interviewees reported. A questionnaire measured three deception strategies: ‘Tell it all’, ‘keep it simple’ or ‘paying attention to demeanour’. Lie tellers reported fewer details, complications and verifiable sources than truth tellers and reporting these variables was negatively correlated with the ‘keep it simple’ and ‘demeanour’ strategies. The type of interview protocol did not affect the results. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Practitioners frequently inform us that variable ‘total details' is not suitable for lie detection purposes in real life interviews. Practitioners cannot count the number of details in real time and the threshold of details required to classify someone as a truth teller or a lie teller is unknown. The authors started to address these issues by examining three new verbal veracity cues: complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies. We present a meta-analysis regarding these three variables and compared the results with ‘total details'. Truth tellers reported more details (d = 0.28 to d = 0.45) and more complications (d = 0.51 to d = 0.62) and fewer common knowledge details (d = -0.40 to d = -0.46) and self-handicapping strategies (d = -0.37 to d = -0.50) than lie tellers. Complications was the best diagnostic veracity cue. The findings were similar for the initial free recall and the second recall in which only new information was examined. Four moderators (scenario, motivation, modality, and interview technique) did not affect the results. As a conclusion, complications in particular appear to be a good veracity indicator but more research is required. We included suggestions for such research. © 2021 Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid. All Rights Reserved.
Psychologists must be able to test both for the presence of an effect and for the absence of an effect. In addition to testing against zero, researchers can use the two one-sided tests (TOST) procedure to test for equivalence and reject the presence of a smallest effect size of interest (SESOI). The TOST procedure can be used to determine if an observed effect is surprisingly small, given that a true effect at least as extreme as the SESOI exists. We explain a range of approaches to determine the SESOI in psychological science and provide detailed examples of how equivalence tests should be performed and reported. Equivalence tests are an important extension of the statistical tools psychologists currently use and enable researchers to falsify predictions about the presence, and declare the absence, of meaningful effects.
Psychologists must be able to test both for the presence of an effect and for the absence of an effect. In addition to testing against zero, researchers can use the two one-sided tests (TOST) procedure to test for equivalence and reject the presence of a smallest effect size of interest (SESOI). The TOST procedure can be used to determine if an observed effect is surprisingly small, given that a true effect at least as extreme as the SESOI exists. We explain a range of approaches to determine the SESOI in psychological science and provide detailed examples of how equivalence tests should be performed and reported. Equivalence tests are an important extension of the statistical tools psychologists currently use and enable researchers to falsify predictions about the presence, and declare the absence, of meaningful effects.
Recently, researchers have started searching for combinations of verbal cues to deceit and verbal cues to truth. The proportion of complications (complications divided by complications plus common knowledge details plus self-handicapping strategies) is an example of such a combination, as it includes one verbal cue of truth (complications) and two verbal cues of deceit (common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies). This study examines whether or not complications, common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies and the proportion of complications can differentiate truth-tellers from liars in interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews. Both interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews take place frequently, and it is important to know whether or not any given lie detection tool works in both interview settings. For this purpose, three data sets were obtained and the data were aggregated. All four variables were found to differentiate truth-tellers from liars to a similar extent in both interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.
We sought to identify motivations to resist cooperation in intelligence interviews and develop techniques to overcome this resistance. One source of resistance can arise because of concerns for affiliations (e.g., “I do not want to inform on my friends/family/fellow countryman”). We investigated two avenues of rapport building—approach and avoidance— designed to overcome this concern. In a modified cheating paradigm, our participants (N = 116) became affiliated with a confederate who they then witnessed cheating. Participants were interviewed about the event in a 2 (approach: present vs. absent) 2 (avoid: present vs. absent) design. The interviewer used either an approach technique that aligned them with the interviewer (portrayed as a morally good person) or an avoid technique that moved them away from the culprit (portrayed as nefarious), neither, or both. The approach technique increased rapport between the interviewer and participant. However, the avoid technique decreased the amount information elicited. When submitted to a mediation model, the approach technique had a positive indirect effect on information yield via perceived rapport and cooperation, while this was not the case for the avoid technique. An exploratory moderator analysis revealed that sympathy for the confederate moderated the effect of the avoid technique on information disclosed, where the more sympathy a participant felt for the confederate, the less information he or she provided. Implications for interviewing are discussed.
We have been reliably informed by practitioners that police officers and intelligence officers across the world have started to use the Model Statement lie detection technique. In this article we introduce this technique. We describe why it works, report the empirical evidence that it works, and outline how to use it. Research examining the Model Statement only started recently and more research is required. We give suggestions for future research with the technique. The Model Statement technique is one of many recently developed verbal lie detection methods. We start this article with a short overview of the—in our view- most promising recent developments in verbal lie detection before turning our attention to the Model Statement technique.
Psychologists must be able to test both for the presence of an effect and for the absence of an effect. In addition to testing against zero, researchers can use the two one-sided tests (TOST) procedure to test for equivalence and reject the presence of a smallest effect size of interest (SESOI). The TOST procedure can be used to determine if an observed effect is surprisingly small, given that a true effect at least as extreme as the SESOI exists. We explain a range of approaches to determine the SESOI in psychological science and provide detailed examples of how equivalence tests should be performed and reported. Equivalence tests are an important extension of the statistical tools psychologists currently use and enable researchers to falsify predictions about the presence, and declare the absence, of meaningful effects.
Deception and Cognitive Load: Expanding our Horizon with a Working Memory Model Abstract Recently, studies on deception and its detection have increased dramatically. Many of these studies rely on the "cognitive load approach" as the sole explanatory principle to understand deception. These studies have been exclusively on lies about negative actions (usually lies of suspects of [mock] crimes). Instead, we need to re-focus more generally on the cognitive processes involved in generating both lies and truths, not just on manipulations of cognitive load. Using Baddeley's (2000, 2007, 2012) working memory model, which integrates verbal and visual processes in working memory with retrieval from long-term memory and control of action, not only verbal content cues but also nonverbal, paraverbal and linguistic cues can be investigated within a single framework. The proposed model considers long-term semantic, episodic and autobiographical memory and their connections with working memory and action. It also incorporates ironic processes of mental control (Wegner, 1994, 2009), the role of scripts and schemata and retrieval cues and retrieval processes. Specific predictions of the model are outlined and support from selective studies is presented. The model is applicable to different types of reports, particularly about lies and truths about complex events, and to different modes of production (oral, hand-written, typed). Predictions regarding several moderator variables and methods to investigate them are proposed.
Background/Objective: Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) is the tool most extensively used worldwide for evaluating the veracity of a testimony. CBCA, initially designed for evaluating the testimonies of victims of child sexual abuse, has been empirically validated. Moreover, CBCA has been generalized to adult populations and other contexts though this generalization has not been endorsed by the scientific literature. Method: Thus, a meta-analysis was performed to assess the Undeutsch Hypothesis and the CBCA checklist of criteria in discerning in adults between memories of self-experienced real-life events and fabricated or fictitious memories. Results: Though the results corroborated the Undeutsch Hypothesis, and CBCA as a valid technique, the results were not generalizable, and the self-deprecation and pardoning the perpetrator criteria failed to discriminate between both memories. The technique can be complemented with additional reality criteria. The study of moderators revealed discriminating efficacy was significantly higher in filed studies on sexual offences and intimate partner violence. Conclusions: The findings are discussed in terms of their implications as well as the limitations and conditions for applying these results to forensic settings.
Five decades of lie detection research have shown that people’s ability to detect deception by observing behavior and listening to speech is limited. The problem is that cues to deception are typically faint and unreliable. The aim for interviewers, therefore, is to ask questions that actively elicit and amplify verbal and nonverbal cues to deceit. We present an innovative lie detection perspective based on cognitive load, demonstrating that it is possible to ask questions that raise cognitive load more in liars than in truth tellers. This cognitive lie detection perspective consists of two approaches. The imposing-cognitive-load approach aims to make the interview setting more difficult for interviewees. We argue that this affects liars more than truth tellers, resulting in more, and more blatant, cues to deceit. The strategic-questioning approach examines different ways of questioning that elicit the most differential responses between truth tellers and liars.
To be able to assess the veracity of statements offered by suspects, witnesses and alleged victims is of paramount importance in legal settings. The aim of this paper is to provide an initial piece of scientific support for the idea that psychologically informed mind-reading can improve people's ability to detect deception. To this end, a theoretical framework is sketched; a framework resting upon psychological notions from three domains: (a) the psychology of mind-reading, (b) the psychology of self-regulation, and (c) the psychology of guilt and innocence. Importantly, the term mind-reading is used in an instrumental (vs descriptive) manner, where the goal is to improve the ability to predict a person's behaviour (not to read the content of a person's mind). It is argued that the mind-reading process can be facilitated by theoretical and empirical work pertaining to ‘the psychology of guilt’ and ‘the psychology of innocence’. Using psychologically informed mind-reading, predictions of guilty and innocent suspects’ behaviour are specified, and gauged against existing empirical work. Finally, a recently published training study is used to illustrate how the outcome of instrumental mind-reading can be translated into interview tactics, and ultimately improve interviewers’ ability to detect deception.
Deception detection has largely failed to investigate guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies. In this study, mock suspects (n=82) were interrogated by police trainees (n=82) who either were or were not trained in the technique to strategically use the evidence (the SUE technique). Analyses revealed that guilty suspects to a higher degree than innocent suspects applied strategies in order to appear truthful. Guilty suspects reported diverse strategies, while innocent suspects reported the strategy to tell the truth like it had happened, indicating a belief in the visibility of innocence. The realism in the suspects’ expectation about how their veracity was judged was largely dependent on the way in which they had been interrogated. The truth-telling suspects who were interrogated according to the SUE technique were optimistic about being judged as truthful; this optimism was warranted as the vast majority of them were classified as truthful. The SUE technique seems to help (a) spotting guilty suspects without them being aware of it and (b) spotting innocent suspects, and they become aware of it. That innocent (but not guilty) suspects can read how the interrogator views them is advantageous for the investigative process.
Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) represents a merger of interpersonal communication and deception principles designed to better account for deception in interactive contexts. At the same time, it bas the potential to enlighten theories related to (a) credibility and truthful communication and (b) interpersonal communication. Presented here are key definitions, assumptions related to the critical attributes and key features of interpersonal communication and deception, and 18 general propositions from which specific testable hypotheses can be derived. Research findings relevant to the propositions are also summarized.
In 2 diary studies of lying, 77 college students reported telling 2 lies a day, and 70 community members told 1. Participants told more self-centered lies than other-oriented lies, except in dyads involving only women, in which other-oriented lies were as common as self-centered ones. Participants told relatively more self-centered lies to men and relatively more other-oriented lies to women. Consistent with the view of lying as an everyday social interaction process, participants said that they did not regard their lies as serious and did not plan them much or worry about being caught. Still, social interactions in which lies were told were less pleasant and less intimate than those in which no lies were told.
Do people behave differently when they are lying compared with when they are telling the truth? The combined results of 1,338 estimates of 158 cues to deception are reported. Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales. They also make a more negative impression and are more tense. Their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents. However, many behaviors showed no discernible links, or only weak links, to deceit. Cues to deception were more pronounced when people were motivated to succeed, especially when the motivations were identity relevant rather than monetary or material. Cues to deception were also stronger when lies were about transgressions.
In two experiments, we tested the hypotheses that (a) the difference between liars and truth tellers will be greater when interviewees report their stories in reverse order than in chronological order, and (b) instructing interviewees to recall their stories in reverse order will facilitate detecting deception. In Experiment 1, 80 mock suspects told the truth or lied about a staged event and did or did not report their stories in reverse order. The reverse order interviews contained many more cues to deceit than the control interviews. In Experiment 2, 55 police officers watched a selection of the videotaped interviews of Experiment 1 and made veracity judgements. Requesting suspects to convey their stories in reverse order improved police observers' ability to detect deception and did not result in a response bias.
In a countermeasures experiment, we examined to what extent liars who learn about the Model Statement tool and about the proportion of complications (complications/complications + common knowledge details + self-handicapping strategies) can successfully adjust their responses so that they sound like truth tellers. Truth tellers discussed a trip they had made; liars fabricated a story. Participants were of Lebanese, Mexican, and South-Korean origin. Prior to the interview they did or did not receive information about (i) the working of the Model statement and (ii) three types of verbal detail: complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies. We found no evidence that liars sounded like truth tellers after being informed about the Model Statement and/or types of detail we examined. Actually, veracity differences were similar across experimental conditions, with truth tellers reporting more detail and more complications and obtaining a higher proportion of complications score than liars.
In none of the deception studies that used drawings to date, was the effect of sketching on both speech content and drawing content examined, making it unclear what the full potential is of the use of drawings as a lie detection tool. A total of 122 truth tellers and liars took part in the study who did or did not sketch while narrating their allegedly experienced event. We formulated hypotheses about the total amount of information and number of complications reported and about various features of the drawings. Participants in the Sketch‐present condition provided more information than participants in the Sketch‐absent condition, and truth tellers reported more details than liars, but only in the Sketch‐present condition. In contrast to previous research, no Veracity differences occurred regarding the content of the drawings, perhaps because sketching was introduced as a tool that facilitated verbal recall and not as a stand‐alone tool.
Verbal lie detection tools are almost exclusively examined in Western Europe and North America, but practitioners worldwide show interest in such tools. Because cultural differences in the efficacy of such tools may occur, it is important to examine their efficacy in different cultures. In this article, we focus on proportion of complications, which in previous research was more diagnostic than “total details” in two British samples and in three samples that each included Hispanic, Russian, and South Korean participants. In the present article, we merged the three non‐British samples and analysed the data by presenting them for each cultural group separately. Truth tellers disclosed the details of a trip away they had made, whereas liars fabricated such details. Proportion of complications discriminated truth tellers from liars in all three groups and was consistently a better indicator of veracity than total details. Implications of the findings are discussed.
Due to time constraints interviews aimed to detect deception in airport settings should be brief and veracity assessments should be made in real time. In two experiments carried out in the departure hall of an international airport, truth tellers were asked to report truthfully their forthcoming trip, whereas liars were asked to lie about the purpose of their trip. In Experiment 1 we examined five verbal cues we thought had potential to discriminate truth tellers from liars in short airport interviews: Elaboration in disclosing information, checkable details, how many people are aware of the trip, complications, and plausibility. In Experiment 2 we attempted to improve the interview protocol by adding a second interview phase in which we introduced an Information Protocol and Model Statement. All five cues differentiated truth tellers from liars in both experiments but the Information Protocol and Model Statement did not enhance these differences.
The real-world applicability of content-based tools for distinguishing lies from truths depends on several issues and challenges. For example, individual differences in language style or verbal ability make the decision on an individual case difficult, and interviewee acquaintance with a tool can hamper its effectiveness. The current chapter focuses on the verifiability approach (VA), a new content-based tool. The VA is centered on the knowledge that truth-tellers provide more verifiable details than liars. When liars try to make an impression of honesty by providing many details, they prefer to provide details that are difficult to verify over details that are easy to verify. Thus, the verifiability levels of interviewee accounts are used as indicators for veracity. The applicability of VA to the real world is discussed with respect to several factors, and compared to that of other verbal and nonverbal lie detection tools.
Background: We examined whether the verbal cue, proportion of complications, was a more diagnostic cue to deceit than the amount of information provided (e.g., total number of details). Method: In the experiment, 53 participants were interviewed. Truth tellers (n = 27) discussed a trip they had made during the last twelve months; liars (n = 26) fabricated a story about such a trip. The interview consisted of an initial recall followed by a model statement (a detailed account of an experience unrelated to the topic of investigation) followed by a post-model statement recall. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications. Results: The proportion of complications was significantly higher amongst truth tellers than amongst liars, but only in the post-model statement recall. The amount of information provided did not discriminate truth tellers from liars in either the initial or post-model statement recall. Conclusion: The proportion of complications is a more diagnostic cue to deceit than the amount of information provided as it takes the differential verbal strategies of truth tellers and liars into account.
We examined how the presence of an interpreter during an interview affects eliciting information and cues to deceit, while using a method that encourages interviewees to provide more detail (model statement, MS). A total of 199 Hispanic, Korean and Russian participants were interviewed either in their own native language without an interpreter, or through an interpreter. Interviewees either lied or told the truth about a trip they made during the last twelve months. Half of the participants listened to a MS at the beginning of the interview. The dependent variables were ‘detail’, ‘complications’, ‘common knowledge details’, ‘self-handicapping strategies’ and ‘ratio of complications’. In the MS-absent condition, the interviews resulted in less detail when an interpreter was present than when an interpreter was absent. In the MS-present condition, the interviews resulted in a similar amount of detail in the interpreter present and absent conditions. Truthful statements included more complications and fewer common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies than deceptive statements, and the ratio of complications was higher for truth tellers than liars. The MS strengthened these results, whereas an interpreter had no effect on these results.
People are generally poor at detecting deceit when observing someone’s behaviour or listening to their speech. In this chapter I will discuss the major factors (pitfalls) that lead to failures in catching liars: the sixteen reasons I will present are clustered into three categories: (i) a lack of motivation to detect lies; (ii) difficulties associated with lie detection; and (iii) common errors made by lie detectors. Discussing pitfalls provides insight into how lie detectors can improve their performance (for example, by recognising common biases and avoiding common judgment errors). The second section of this chapter discusses 11 ways (opportunities) to improve lie detection skills. Within this section, I first provide five recommendations for avoiding common errors in detecting lies. Next, I discuss recent lie detection research that introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers. The recommendations are relevant in various settings, from the individual level (e.g., “Is my partner really working late?”) to the societal level (e.g., “Can we trust this suspect when he claims that he is not the serial rapist the police are searching for?”).
We examined how the presence of an interpreter during an interview affects eliciting information and cues to deceit, whilst using a method that encourages interviewees to provide more detail (model statement, MS). Sixty native English speakers were interviewed in English, and 186 non-native English speakers were interviewed in English or through an interpreter. Interviewees either lied or told the truth about a mock security meeting, which they reported twice: in an initial free recall and after listening to the MS. The MS resulted in the native English speakers and those interviewed with an interpreter providing more reminiscences (additional detail) than the non-native English speakers interviewed without an interpreter. As a result, those interviewed through an interpreter provided more detail than the non-native English speakers, but only after the MS. Native English participants were most detailed in both recalls. No difference was found in the amount of reminiscences provided by liars and truth tellers.Copyright
The current paper describes potential systematic errors (or biases) that may appear while applying content-based lie detection tools, by focusing on richness in detail – a core indicator in verbal tools – as a test case. Two categories of biases are discussed: those related to the interviewees (i.e., interviewees with different characteristics differ in the number of details they provide when lying or telling the truth) and those related to the tool expert (i.e., tool experts with different characteristics differ in the way they perceive and interpret verbal cues). We suggested several ways to reduce the influence of these biases, and emphasized the need for future studies in this matter.
The success of a criminal investigation often depends on witness statements, particularly if no other evidence is available. This is typically – although not exclusively – the case in sexual-abuse cases. The fundamental question to be answered in evaluating a witness statement is whether or not (and to what extent) the statement is a correct and complete description of the event in question. Answering this question first requires the identification of potential sources of incorrect accounts. Based on this information appropriate diagnostic procedures and techniques can be applied in order to assess the probability of the correctness of the statement. An account may differ from the facts for two possible reasons (see Figure 3.1): A witness, who is motivated to give a correct account of the events in question may be subject to unintentional errors, or The witness deliberately and intentionally tells a lie. The crucial difference between these alternatives is in the witnesses' motivation. Furthermore, in both cases one can think of stable personal or of transient situational factors as the major cause for incorrect accounts. For example, sensory or intellectual deficiencies may prevent a witness from perceiving or reporting certain events. On the other hand, darkness or lack of attention may result in incomplete perceptions in a certain situation. Similarly, intentional distortions or complete lies can be conceived as being caused by stable personality factors like antisociality (which affect what has been called ‘general credibility of the witness’) or by a situation-specific motivation to tell a lie (which impacts on the ‘specific credibility of the statement’).
Deception research regarding insurance claims is rare but relevant given the financial loss in terms of fraud. In Study 1, a field study in a large multinational insurance fraud detection company, truth telling mock claimants (N = 19) and lying mock claimants (N = 21) were interviewed by insurance company telephone operators. These operators classified correctly only 50% of these truthful and lying claimants, but their task was particularly challenging: Claimants said little, and truthful and deceptive statements did not differ in quality (measured with Criteria-Based Content Analysis [CBCA]) or plausibility. In Study 2, a laboratory experiment, participants in the experimental condition (N = 43) were exposed to an audiotaped truthful and detailed account of an event that was unrelated to insurance claims (a day at the motor races). The number of words, quality of the statement (measured with CBCA), and plausibility of the participants' accounts were compared with participants who were not given a model statement (N = 40). The participants who had listened to the model statement provided longer statements than control participants, truth tellers obtained higher CBCA scores than liars, and only in the model statement condition did truth tellers sound more plausible than liars. Providing participants with a model statement is thus an innovative and successful tool to elicit cues to deception. Providing such a model has the potential to enhance performance in insurance call interviews, and, as we argue, in many other interview settings.
We examined the potential of undercover interviewing and collective interviewing in eliciting cues to deceit in intelligence interviews. Twenty-four pairs of truth tellers and 23 pairs of liars undertook a mission in which they were interviewed covertly in a park by an undercover interviewer, and then had a later formal, forensic-style interview with a second interviewer. Truth tellers and liars went to the park for different reasons and carried out somewhat different activities. Liars were instructed that if they were asked about their activities to conceal their true reason for visiting the park and to pretend to be there for the same reason as truth tellers. Based on theoretical principles about short-term gains, lack of cognitive flexibility, tendency to avoid reporting potential incriminating information, memory deficits, lack of imagination, and transaction information search, we expected liars to be less forthcoming about their meeting with the undercover interviewer and to show less overlap in their answers in the undercover and formal interviews. We also expected them to report fewer unexpected events, and to consult each other less during the formal interview. The hypotheses were supported and the implications for intelligence interviewing are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)
Deception researchers have suggested that when truth tellers and liars carry out the same activities, verbal differences in reporting such activities are unlikely to occur. We argue that liars will report these activities in less detail than truth tellers, due to a tendency to be less forthcoming with information relating to their deception. In the present experiment, truth tellers and liars carried out the same activities for benevolent (truth tellers) or malevolent (liars) reasons, and were asked to report these activities in a free recall phase and in a cued recall phase. In the cued recall phase half of the participants were asked to recall the information with their eyes closed. Liars’ accounts were less detailed than truth tellers’ accounts in both phases of the interview. Eye closure resulted in the reporting of more detail by truth tellers and liars. The theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed.
This study explores the form and function of deception in close relationships. Free response descriptions of situations involving the deception of a relational partner were obtained from 357 university students and other adults. Descriptions were coded for type of deceptive communication, antecedent condition, type of information and reasons given for being deceptive. Results indicated that falsification was the most frequently reported type of deceptive communication and avoiding hurt to partner was the most frequently reported specific reason for deception. Comparisons across types of relationship revealed that (1) married respondents reported proportionately more instances of omission and fewer instances of explicit falsification relative to other relationship types, (2) dating respondents reported proportionately more reasons focused on protecting their resources and avoiding stress/abuse from partner, (3) dating respondents reported proportionately more reasons focused on avoiding relational trauma/termination, and (4) married respondents reported proportionately more reasons focused on avoiding threats to partner's face/self-esteem. For the total sample, high ratings of relational satisfaction, closeness and perceived partner commitment were associated with the general category of partnerfocused reasons.
Purpose. Most past research on detecting deception has relied on the assumption that liars often fabricate a story to account for their whereabouts, whereas truth tellers simply recall an autobiographical memory. However, little research has examined whether liars, when free to choose the topic of their own reports, will actually choose to fabricate information rather than use a different strategy for constructing their lies. We describe two studies that evaluated liars’ strategies for selecting the content of their lies when given the freedom to choose whatever content they desired.
Method. In Studies 1 (N= 35) and 2 (N= 22) participants (a) described a truthful story in order to identify a salient event, then (b) lied about the event, and finally (c) described their strategies for choosing the content of the reported lies.
Results. Liars overwhelmingly chose to report a previously experienced event for the time period they were to be deceptive about (67% and 86% in Studies 1 and 2, respectively). The majority of discrete details reported were experienced, occurred relatively frequently, occurred relatively recently, and were typical or routine.
Conclusions. These findings have significant implications for the development of cognitive-based interventions for detecting deception. In particular, some methods of deception that rely on content analysis may be ineffective if liars choose to report previous experiences rather than outright fabrications.
Discusses the role of expert psychological witnesses in assessing the truthfulness of testimony by children or juveniles in Germany regarding sexual abuse. An overview of the general diagnostic procedure in these cases is presented, focusing on credibility assessment; and statement analysis, a major diagnostic tool in determining credibility, is described. The empirical basis and scientific status of statement analysis are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Major investigative interviewing protocols such as the Cognitive Interview recommend that investigators build rapport with cooperative adult witnesses at the beginning of a police interview. Although research substantiates the benefits of rapport-building on the accuracy of child witness reports, few studies have examined whether similar benefits apply to adult witnesses. The present study investigated whether verbal rapport-building techniques increase adult witness report accuracy and decrease their susceptibility to post-event misinformation. One-hundred eleven college adults viewed a videotaped mock-crime, received post-event misinformation (or correct information) about the crime, and were subsequently interviewed by a research assistant who built rapport (or did not build rapport) before recalling the mock-crime. Results indicated that rapport-building increased the quality of witness recall by decreasing the percentage of inaccurate and misinformation reported, particularly in response to open-ended questions. We discuss implications and recommendations for law enforcement. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Deception detection: Current challenges and new approaches
- P. A. Granhag
- M. Hartwig
Detecting concealed information and deception: Verbal, behavioral, and biological methods
- G. Nahari
A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis
- A. Vrij
- R. P. Fisher
- H. Blank
Credibility assessment
- B. M. DePaulo
- S. E. Kirkendol