Search

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.

Sketching while narrating involves describing an event while sketching on a blank paper (self-generated sketch) or on a printed map. We compared the effects of self-generated sketches and printed maps on information elicitation and lie detection. Participants (N = 211) carried out a mock mission and were instructed to tell the truth or to lie about it in an online interview. In the first phase of the interview, all participants provided a free recall. In the second phase, participants provided another free recall or verbally described the mission while sketching on a blank paper or on a printed map. Truth tellers provided richer accounts than lie tellers. Larger effect sizes emerged for the self-generated sketch condition than for the printed map and free recall conditions. This suggests that self-generated sketches are more effective lie detection tools when information on routes and locations is sought.

The Devil's Advocate protocol has been developed to assist making veracity assessments when someone discusses their opinion. The present experiment focused on protester actions rather than controversial issues and also included an adapted version of the Verifiability Approach. Participants told the truth or lied about protester actions and the participants' answers to the eliciting opinion and Devil's Advocate questions were compared. The Devil's Advocate approach predicts the difference in answers (residue scores) to be more pronounced in truth tellers than in lie tellers in terms of quantity of the answers (number of words, details and arguments) and quality of the answers (plausibility, immediacy and clarity). The hypothesis was supported but only in terms of quality: Truth tellers' answers sounded more plausible and immediate and somewhat clearer than lie tellers' answers. Truth tellers also reported more digital verifiable sources than lie tellers.

The current experiment examined the effects of combining two interview techniques on information elicitation and lie detection in multiple interviews. Participants were interviewed online over three weeks. Two-thirds of the participants (n = 114) were presented with the model statement (MS) interview technique in Interview 1 and were asked to sketch and narrate in Interview 2 (MS-Sketch condition) or vice versa (Sketch-MS condition). In Interview 3, all participants provided a free recall. The remaining one-third of participants (n = 61) provided only a free recall in the three interviews. Truth tellers reported more information than lie tellers in all three interviews. In Interview 2, the Sketch-MS condition elicited more new information and cues to deceit than the other conditions. The results imply that veracity effects are consistent across multiple interviews and the MS is effective for eliciting information and cues to deceit when preceded by an initial recall.

Research has shown that complications are more common in truth tellers' accounts than in lie tellers' accounts, but there is currently no experiment that has examined the accuracy of observers' veracity judgments when looking at complications. A total of 87 participants were asked to judge 10 transcripts (five truthful and five false) derived from a set of 59 transcripts generated in a previous experiment by Deeb et al. Approximately half of the participants were trained to detect complications (Trained), and the other half did not receive training (Untrained). Trained participants were more likely to look for complications, but they did not detect them accurately, and thus their veracity judgments did not improve beyond Untrained participants' judgments. We discuss that the training may have been too brief or not sensitive enough to enhance decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Behaviour detection officers' task is to spot potential criminals in public spaces, but scientific research concerning what to look for is scarce. In two experiments, 52 (Experiment 1A) and 60 (Experiment 2A) participants carried out a mission involving a ferry crossing. Half were asked to smuggle an object; the other half were non-smugglers. In Experiment 2A, two confederates appeared to approach as if looking for someone on the ferry. Smugglers, more than non-smugglers, reported afterwards to have felt nervous, self-conscious, and conspicuous and to attempt behavioural control during the ferry crossing. The secretly videotaped ferry crossings were shown to 104 (Experiment 1B) and 120 (Experiment 2B) observers, tasked to identify the smugglers. Although they reported paying attention mostly to signs of nervousness, lie detection accuracy rate was poor (48% in Experiment 1 and 39.2% in Experiment 2) because their perceptions of nervousness did not match the experiences of nervousness reported by the (non)smugglers.

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 that 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.

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.

People sometimes lie by omitting information. The information lie tellers then report could be entirely truthful. We examined whether the truthful information that lie tellers report in omission lies contains verbal cues indicating that the person is lying. We made a distinction between (i) essential information (events surrounding the omission) and non‐essential information (the rest); and (ii) made a distinction between informing or not informing participants about the key event they witnessed. Participants followed a target person. Truth tellers reported all activities truthfully; lie tellers omitted the key event. Participants were or were not informed what this key event was. In the analyses we discarded the information truth tellers reported about the key event lie tellers omitted. Truth tellers reported more external and contextual details, more complications and fewer common knowledge details and self‐handicapping strategies than lie tellers, but only when discussing essential information. Being informed had no effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the efficacy of a Model Statement to detect opinion lies. A total of 93 participants discussed their opinion about the recent strikes on two occasions, 1 week apart. In one interview they told the truth and in the other interview they lied. Each interview consisted of two phases. In Phase 1 they discussed their alleged opinion (truth or lie as appropriate). They then either listened to a Model Statement (a detailed account of someone discussing an opinion about a topic unrelated to strike actions) and expressed their opinion again in Phase 2 (Model Statement present condition) or they discussed their opinion again without listening to a Model Statement (Model Statement absent condition). The verbal cues examined were pro‐opinion arguments, anti‐opinion arguments, plausibility, immediacy, directness, clarity, and predictability. The truthful statements sounded more plausible in Phases 1 and 2 than the deceptive statements, providing further evidence that plausibility is a strong veracity indicator. The truthful statements included more pro‐arguments and sounded more immediate and direct than the deceptive statements, but only in Phase 2. The Model Statement had no effect. Reasons for the Model Statement null‐effect are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines counter-interrogation strategies employed by liars giving false alibis. Participants (N = 144) visited a restaurant to buy a sandwich (truth-tellers) or to use it as a false alibi (liars). Half of the liars were informed they might be asked for a drawing of the alibi setting if interviewed (informed liars). Participants spent either 10 min (high familiarity condition) or 30 s (low familiarity condition) in the restaurant. All participants were asked to provide two visuospatial statements, which were assessed for salient details, nonsalient details, between-statement consistency, and statement-alibi setting consistency. Informed liars provided significantly more salient and nonsalient details than uninformed liars and truth-tellers, particularly in the high familiarity condition. No differences emerged for statement consistency types. The results suggest that liars are more concerned than truth-tellers about making a positive impression on the interviewer, and they fail to accurately reflect on truth-tellers' visuospatial statements.

Background/Aim: has shown that sketching while narrating facilitates the elicitation of information and verbal veracity cues in single interviews. We examined if these effects are retained when suspects are shown their sketch after one week in a repeated interview. Method: Participants (N = 173) completed a mock mission and then told the truth or lied about it in an immediate interview (interview 1). Participants either verbally reported the mission (Free recall condition) or sketched it while describing what they were sketching (sketch condition). After one week, all participants were asked for a free recall without sketching (interview 2). Half of the participants in the Sketch condition had access to their sketch while they verbally reported the event whereas the remaining half did not access the sketch. Results: Truth tellers provided more information than lie tellers in both interviews, and sketching elicited more information than a free recall but only in Interview 1. Participants who had access to their sketch in interview 2 repeated more information than those who did not have access, but accessing the sketch did not have an effect on veracity cues. Conclusions: Thus, sketching enhanced the elicitation of information in Interview 1 and access to the sketch in interview 2 seemed helpful for recalling previously reported information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]