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.

This study examined the relevance of the cognitive interview (CI) for the recall of a road accident by actual victims, depending on the level of stress experienced at the time of the event. Fifty-six victims (or witnesses) were interviewed, either with a CI or control interview, after completing a series of questionnaires including measures of their stress level during the accident. Participants who reported a high level of stress recalled more central details than those with a low level. In addition, participants interviewed with the CI recalled more details than those interviewed with a control interview, regardless of the level of stress experienced during the accident. This experiment confirms the CI's relevance in a stressful context, and after an extended period of time. Practical implications for interviewing victims are discussed.

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]

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.

As interviewees typically say less when an interpreter is present, we examined whether this was caused by interpreters not interpreting everything interviewees say or by interviewees providing less information. We further examined (a) the effect of a model drawing on providing information and (b) the diagnostic value of total details and the proportion of complications as cues to deceit. Hispanic, Russian, and South Korean participants were interviewed by native interviewers or by a British interviewer through an interpreter. Truth tellers discussed a trip they had made; liars fabricated a story. Participants received no instruction (condition 1) or were instructed to sketch while narrating without (condition 2) or with (condition 3) being given examples of detailed sketches. Interviewees said less when an interpreter was present because they provided less information. Truth tellers gave more details and, particularly, obtained a higher proportion of complications than liars. The sketching manipulation had no effect.

The current study examined the Cognitive Interview (CI) for eliciting information about an overheard conversation (planning a future crime). Interviews were conducted either in‐person or via telephone. The CI elicited more information, and at a comparable accuracy level, in comparison to a structured interview (SI). The efficacy of the CI was not significantly influenced by whether the interview was conducted in‐person or via telephone. It took more time to conduct the CI than the SI. Finally, various measures of efficiency showed that the CI was as or more efficient than the SI. Suggestions are offered about adapting the CI for telephone interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined whether speech-related differences between truth tellers and liars are more profound when answering unexpected questions than when answering expected questions. We also examined whether the presence of an interpreter affected these results. In the experiment, 204 participants from the United States (Hispanic participants only), Russia, and the Republic of Korea were interviewed in their native language by a native-speaking interviewer or by a British interviewer through an interpreter. Truth tellers discussed a trip that they had made during the last 12 months; liars fabricated a story about such a trip. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications. The proportion of complications distinguished truth tellers from liars better when answering unexpected than expected questions, but only in interpreter-absent interviews. The number of details provided did not differ between truth tellers and liars or between interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

Crimes and terror acts often entail people engaging repeatedly in one type of act (e.g., buying and selling weapons). However, research shows that it is often difficult to remember specific instances of repeated, similar acts. We examined 35 real-world investigations of terrorist acts in Israel in which informants were interviewed about repeated events. The informants were interviewed several times (between 2 and 20) over a period of up to 5 years, with a standard interview (SI) protocol and then one final time with an interview protocol that was adapted from the cognitive interview (CI). Analyses showed that the CI elicited many new events that were not elicited in any of the preceding SIs. Several of the recalled events were assessed for accuracy by comparing to independent evidence of the event; all of the recalled events were corroborated. The current results extend the database of support for the CI in real-world investigative cases of national security. General Audience Summary: Investigations following acts of crime or terrorism often entail interviewing informants to elicit information about repeated events of the same type (e.g., buying and selling weapons on several occasions), a memory task that is known to be difficult. In the present study, after 35 real-world serious acts of terrorism in Israel, experienced, professional investigators interviewed informants several times (up to 20 times) with a standard interview protocol (SI) and then conducted a final interview with a cognitive interview (CI), an interviewing protocol based on the scientific research in memory and communication. The one CI elicited many new events that were not elicited by the many earlier SIs, many of which were subsequently corroborated. We examine the relative value of laboratory research and field research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research indicated that drawing is a strategic tool in investigations. However, little research has been conducted to determine how to introduce a sketch instruction into an investigative interview. The current experiment compared sketching and speaking separately (sketch‐speak and speak‐sketch conditions) with sketching and speaking synchronously to determine which recall method gathered the most information and elicited the most cues to deceit. Participants (N = 180) watched a video, half were asked to tell the truth (to a friendly agent), whereas the other half were asked to lie (to a corrupt agent) about the video in an interview. Participants were asked either to (i) sketch then speak, (ii) speak then sketch, or (iii) speak and sketch synchronously. Verbal statements and sketches were coded for total details, number of people, number of self‐handicapping strategies and plausibility. The camera perspective of sketches was also examined. Truth tellers' sketches and verbal statements were rated as more plausible than those of lie tellers. This difference was found in all three recall methods with the largest effect emerging in the speaking and sketching synchronously condition. Truth tellers included more details than lie tellers in their verbal statements but not in their sketches. Conversely, truth tellers included more people than lie tellers in their sketches but not in their verbal responses. No veracity differences emerged in sketches nor verbal statements for self‐handicapping strategies. However, participants in the speaking and sketching synchronously recall method included more sketch self‐handicapping strategies than those in the other recall conditions. Additionally, participants in the speak and sketch synchronously method reported more verbal details than those who spoke and then sketched. Effects were not large enough between speaking in isolation of sketching and also sketching and speaking synchronously to determine which recall method is best to detect deceit. However, sketching and speaking synchronously emerged as the most beneficial method for information‐gathering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recall of an episodic narrative, as a function of presentation modality (audio-visual sketch, audio-only), was examined across three cumulative experiments. Experiment 1: participants (N = 84) were asked to recall a narrative delivered via audio, or audio accompanied by a sketch. Experiment 2: participants (N = 116) were asked to recall a narrative delivered via sketch or audio-only format, both of which varied in duration/number of details to recall. Experiment 3: participants (N = 173) recalled a narrative that varied by modality (audio-only, non-concurrent sketch, hybrid sketch, concurrent sketch) and access/no access to the sketch during recall. Aggregating the data across the three experiments (mini meta-analysis) revealed that participants provided with sketch-based narratives recalled more information and had higher recall accuracy (Md = 0.80 [95% CI = 0.56, 1.04], Z = 6.51, p < 0.001) than those provided with audio-only narratives. The results also revealed that concurrent sketches led to the best recall of a narrative, and having access to the sketch during recall had minimal impact on recall. The potential implications of the results for recalling information in various contexts are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A single study tested the hypothesis that simulated practice interviews for investigative interviewers of children are more effective when the role of the child respondent is played by trained actors (i.e., postgraduate psychology students) than untrained fellow participants (i.e., child protection workers). Method: The interviewers included 50 child protection service workers. Each interviewer received instruction in the use of open-ended questions and then engaged in two simulated practice interviews. The role of the child respondent in the practice interviews was played by either a trained psychology student or an untrained fellow participant. The key outcome measure was the proportion of open-ended questions, which was assessed immediately prior to and after the practice sessions, as well as 12 weeks post-training. Results: Interviewers who had practiced with trained actors had higher post-training performance (M = 0.83, SD = 0.12) compared to those who had practiced with untrained fellow participants (M = 0.73, SD = 0.13, p less than 0.05), even at the 12-week follow up (M actors = 0.66, SD = 0.25; M untrained actors = 0.49, SD = 0.23, p less than 0.05). Conclusions: Training programs that make better use of practice opportunities (e.g., by using trained respondents) will be more effective in improving the performance of investigative interviewers. Practice implications: A single study investigated the relative effectiveness of two simulated practice exercises for professionals who interview children about abuse. This research is relevant to professionals who design investigative interviewer training programs because it indicates that practical exercises, which are currently chosen on an "ad hoc" or convenience basis, can vary markedly in their effectiveness in encouraging adherence to open questions. (Contains 3 tables.)

Objective: This study compared the effectiveness of two types of instructor feedback (relative to no feedback) on investigative interviewers' ability to adhere to open-ended questions in simulated practice interviews about child abuse. Method: In one condition, feedback was provided at the end of each practice interview. In the other, the instructor stopped the interviewer at various stages "during" the practice interviews to provide feedback. The relative effect of these conditions was examined by measuring interviewers' performance in a standardized mock interview paradigm immediately prior to, immediately after, and 12 weeks after the practice and feedback sessions. Results: Prior to and 12 weeks after the practice sessions were administered, there was no significant difference in participants' adherence to open-ended questions irrespective of the nature of the feedback, or whether feedback was received. At the immediate post-practice assessment interval, however, the participants who received feedback "during" the practice interviews performed better (M proportion of open-ended questions=0.85, SD=0.13) than the other participants (post-interview feedback M=0.67, SD=0.18, p less than 0.001; no feedback M=0.56, SD=0.16, p less than 0.001). This heightened use of open-ended questions was associated with a greater tendency among the interviewees to provide abuse-related details in response to open-ended questions (M=0.91, SD=0.11) compared to the other participants (post-interview feedback M=0.77, SD=0.15, p less than 0.05; no feedback M=0.69, SD=0.16, p=0.001). Conclusions: Different types of feedback can be differentially effective in training child abuse investigators to adhere to open-ended questions. The benefits of any training program, however, are likely to be short-lived without ongoing practice. Practice implications: A single study compared the relative effectiveness of two types of instructor feedback (relative to no feedback) on investigative interviewers' ability to adhere to open-ended questions in simulated practice interviews about child abuse. This research is relevant to trainers of investigative interviewers because there is currently large variability in the type of feedback employed in training programs. This study is one of the first to empirically demonstrate that different types of feedback may be differentially effective in improving the performance of investigative interviewers.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]