Differences between Japanese and British participants in self-reported verbal strategies to appear convincing.

We compared the self-reported verbal strategies employed to appear convincing when lying and truth telling from 101 British (a low-context culture) and 149 Japanese (a high-context culture) participants. They completed a web-based survey and rated the degree to which they would use 16 verbal strategies when telling the truth and lying. British participants were more concerned with providing innocent reasons and avoiding/denying incriminating evidence when lying than when truth telling (no veracity effect emerged for Japanese participants). Japanese participants were less concerned with avoiding hesitations and lack of consistency when lying than when truth telling (no veracity effect emerged for British participants). The findings suggest that it is important to examine whether interview protocols developed to determine veracity in low-context cultures, such as the Strategic Use of Evidence and Cognitive Credibility Assessment, are equally effective in high-context cultures.

How researchers can make verbal lie detection more attractive for practitioners.

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.

Facilitating recall and particularisation of repeated events in adults using a multi-method interviewing format.

Reports about repeated experiences tend to include more schematic information than information about specific instances. However, investigators in both forensic and intelligence settings typically seek specific over general information. We tested a multi-method interviewing format (MMIF) to facilitate recall and particularisation of repeated events through the use of the self-generated cues mnemonic, the timeline technique, and follow-up questions. Over separate sessions, 150 adult participants watched four scripted films depicting a series of meetings in which a terrorist group planned attacks and planted explosive devices. For half of our sample, the third witnessed event included two deviations (one new detail and one changed detail). A week later, participants provided their account using the MMIF, the timeline technique with self-generated cues, or a free recall format followed by open-ended questions. As expected, more information was reported overall in the MMIF condition compared to the other format conditions, for two types of details, correct details, and correct gist details. The reporting of internal intrusions was comparable across format conditions. Contrary to hypotheses, the presence of deviations did not benefit recall or source monitoring. Our findings have implications for information elicitation in applied settings and for future research on adults' retrieval of repeated events.

A within-statement baseline comparison for detecting lies.

To make veracity judgements in individual cases, practitioners may rely on baselining. That is, they may evaluate a statement relative to a baseline statement that is known to be truthful. We investigated whether a within-statement verbal baseline comparison could enhance discriminatory accuracy. Participants (n = 148) read an alibi statement of a mock suspect and provided a veracity judgement regarding a critical two-hour period within the alibi statement. This critical element was either deceptive or truthful and was embedded into an otherwise truthful story. Half of the participants received additional instructions to use the surrounding truthful elements of the statement as a baseline. Instructing participants to make a within-statement baseline comparison did not improve the accuracy of credibility assessments.

'Please tell me all you remember': a comparison between British and Arab interviewees' free narrative performance and its implications for lie detection.

We examined how much information British and Arab truth tellers and lie tellers volunteer in an initial free narrative. Based on cultural differences in communication styles we predicted that British interviewees would report more details and more complications than Arab interviewees (culture main effect). We further predicted that truth tellers would report more details and complications than lie tellers (veracity main effect), particularly in the British sample (Veracity × Culture interaction effect). A total of 78 British and 76 Israeli-Arab participants took part. The experiment was carried out at a British university and an Israeli university. Participants carried out a mission. Truth tellers were instructed to report the mission truthfully in a subsequent interview whereas lie tellers were asked to lie about certain aspects of the mission. The three hypotheses were supported for details, whereas for complications only the predicted veracity main effect occurred.

Reading Lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception.

The relationship between nonverbal communication and deception continues to attract much interest, but there are many misconceptions about it. In this review, we present a scientific view on this relationship. We describe theories explaining why liars would behave differently from truth tellers, followed by research on how liars actually behave and individuals' ability to detect lies. We show that the nonverbal cues to deceit discovered to date are faint and unreliable and that people are mediocre lie catchers when they pay attention to behavior. We also discuss why individuals hold misbeliefs about the relationship between nonverbal behavior and deception-beliefs that appear very hard to debunk. We further discuss the ways in which researchers could improve the state of affairs by examining nonverbal behaviors in different ways and in different settings than they currently do.

Proportion of complications in interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

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.

Verifiability on the run: an experimental study on the verifiability approach to malingered symptoms.

Several studies on the verifiability approach found that truth-tellers report more verifiable details than liars. Therefore, we wanted to test whether such a difference would emerge in the context of malingered symptoms. We obtained statements from undergraduates (N = 53) who had been allocated to three different conditions: truth-tellers, coached malingerers and naïve malingerers. Truth-tellers carried out an intensive physical exercise and after a short interval wrote a report about their experience and elicited symptoms. The two malingering groups had to fabricate a story about the physical activity and its symptoms. Truth-tellers did not generate more verifiable details than malingerers. However, malingerers reported more non-verifiable details than truth-tellers. Coached and naïve malingerers did not differ in this respect. Relative to truth-tellers, naïve malingerers reported more symptoms-related non-verifiable details, while coached malingerers reported more exercise-related non-verifiable details. Focusing on non-verifiable details may inform the detection of malingered symptoms.

Observers' performance at evaluating truthfulness when provided with comparable truth or small talk baselines.

Research has shown that the comparable truth baseline technique outperforms the small talk with respect to the elicitation of cues to deception. However, their impact on observers' accuracy has not been evaluated yet. In this experiment, participants (N = 74) watched ten interviews where senders either lied or told the truth about a set of tasks. Half of the interviews were conducted with a comparable truth baseline, the other half with a small talk baseline. As predicted, results showed that observers in the comparable truth baseline condition outperformed participants in the small talk baseline condition in terms of total accuracy rates. The article sheds light on the impact of the two baseline techniques in distinguishing truth-tellers from liars and discourages the use of a small talk baseline. It also provides insights for future studies.

Police accuracy in truth/lie detection when judging baseline interviews.

Research has shown that a comparable truth baseline (CTB) approach elicits more cues to deception and results in higher accuracy rates than a small talk baseline. Past research focused on laypeople's accuracy rates. We examined whether the CTB also has a positive effect on law enforcement personnel accuracy. In this study, 95 police officers judged 10 interviews, whereby half of the senders told the truth, and the other half lied about a mock undercover mission. Half of the interviews included only questioning about the event under investigation, whereas the other half also included questioning aimed at creating a CTB. Total and truth accuracy did not differ, but observers who watched interviews with a CTB obtained higher lie detection accuracy rates than those who watched interviews without the baseline questioning. Signal detection analyses showed that this effect could be attributed to a decreased response bias in the CTB condition.

Interview expectancies: awareness of potential biases influences behaviour in interviewees.

Expectancy effects are known to influence behaviour so that what is expected appears to be true. In this study, expectancy was induced using (fabricated) information about honesty and specific group membership. Targets were tested in a non-accusatory interview environment using neutral and information-gathering questions. It was hypothesized that those exposed to the negative information (the expectancy) would demonstrate behaviour consistent with an increased cognitive load, and evidence was found to support this prediction. Due to the investigative nature of the information-gathering questions, it was also expected that the targets exposed to the expectancy would exhibit more of these behaviours in the investigative portion of the interview. Some behaviour was found to support this prediction (i.e. shorter responses and increased speech disturbances); however, indicators of performance altering load were not observed during this phase of the interview. These findings support the hypothesis that expectancy effects can noticeably alter interviewee behaviour.

A stability bias effect among deceivers.

Research examining how truth tellers' and liars' verbal behavior is attenuated as a function of delay is largely absent from the literature, despite its important applied value. We examined this factor across 2 studies in which we examined the effects of a hypothetical delay (Experiment 1) or actual delay (Experiment 2) on liars' accounts. In Experiment 1-an insurance claim interview setting-claimants either genuinely experienced a (staged) loss of a tablet device (n = 40) or pretended to have experienced the same loss (n = 40). Truth tellers were interviewed either immediately after the loss (n = 20) or 3 weeks after the loss (n = 20), whereas liars had to either pretend the loss occurred either immediately before (n = 20) or 3 weeks before (n = 20) the interview (i.e., hypothetical delay for liars). In Experiment 2-a Human Intelligence gathering setting-sources had to either lie (n = 50) or tell the truth (n = 50) about a secret video they had seen concerning the placing of a spy device. Half of the truth tellers and liars where interviewed immediately after watching the video (n = 50), and half where interviewed 3-weeks later (n = 50; i.e., real delay for liars). Across both experiments, truth tellers interviewed after a delay reported fewer details than truth tellers interviewed immediately after the to-be-remembered event. In both studies, liars failed to simulate this pattern of forgetting and reported similar amounts of detail when interviewed without or after a delay, demonstrating a stability bias in reporting. (PsycINFO Database Record

Interviewing strategically to elicit admissions from guilty suspects.

In this article we introduce a novel interviewing tactic to elicit admissions from guilty suspects. By influencing the suspects' perception of the amount of evidence the interviewer holds against them, we aimed to shift the suspects' counterinterrogation strategies from less to more forthcoming. The proposed tactic (SUE-Confrontation) is a development of the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) framework and aims to affect the suspects' perception by confronting them with statement-evidence inconsistencies. Participants (N = 90) were asked to perform several mock criminal tasks before being interviewed using 1 of 3 interview techniques: (a) SUE-Confrontation, (b) Early Disclosure of Evidence, or (c) No Disclosure of Evidence. As predicted, the SUE-Confrontation interview generated more statement-evidence inconsistencies from suspects than the Early Disclosure interview. Importantly, suspects in the SUE-Confrontation condition (vs. Early and No disclosure conditions) admitted more self-incriminating information and also perceived the interviewer to have had more information about the critical phase of the crime (the phase where the interviewer lacked evidence). The findings show the adaptability of the SUE-technique and how it may be used as a tool for eliciting admissions.

Statements about true and false intentions: using the Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences.

This study investigates the combined effect of the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the unanticipated questions approach on the magnitude of the elicited cues to true and false intentions. The participants (N = 125) planned for either a mock crime or a non-criminal event, half of them were interviewed with a standard interview (SI) and half with the CI. All participants were asked one set of questions targeting their intentions (anticipated questions) and one set of questions targeting the phase in which they planned their stated intentions (unanticipated questions). As predicted, the questions about the planning phase were perceived as unanticipated by both liars and truth-tellers. Furthermore, and as predicted, the truth-tellers' (vs. the liars') answers to the unanticipated questions were significantly more detailed. Importantly, and in line with our predictions, for the answers given to questions about the planning-phase, liars and truth-tellers differed more clearly in the CI-condition than in the SI-condition, indicating that the CI indeed magnified the differences between liars and truth-tellers. In addition, and as predicted, the truth-tellers' (vs. the liars') descriptions of their intentions were more characterized by information related to how to attain the stated goal.

Successful use of the forced choice test for detecting concealment of semantic memory in criminal and intelligence investigations.

The current study examined the validity of the forced choice test (FCT) in a forensic scenario when used to detect concealment of semantic memory (SM-FCT). We also compared the SM-FCT validity to the FCT validity in the more commonly investigated episodic memory scenario (EM-FCT). In simulating a scenario of investigating suspected members of a terror organization, 277 students were asked to deceptively deny being enrolled in a college in which they do actually study. Results indicated that the SM-FCT's validity level was within the range of the EM-FCTs' validity levels. Theoretically, the results support a cognitive-based explanation for the FCT operation mechanism. Practically, they imply that FCT can be used in criminal or intelligence investigations of suspected members of terrorist or criminal organizations or suspected perpetrators of illegal acts or acts of terrorism, in which the incriminating evidence being sought is in the realm of designated semantic memory or knowledge.

Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment.

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.

Introducing the high-context communication style interview protocol to detect deception in pairs.

In four experiments, we examined whether pairs of truth tellers could be distinguished from pairs of lie tellers by taking advantage of the fact that only pairs of truth tellers can refer to shared events by using brief expressions (high-context communication style). In Experiments 1 and 2, pairs of friends and pairs of strangers pretending to be friends answered (i) questions they likely had expected to be asked (e.g., 'How did you first meet'?) and (ii) unexpected questions (e.g., 'First, describe a shared event in a few words. Then elaborate on it'). Pairs were interviewed individually (Experiment 1, N = 134 individuals) or collectively (Experiment 2, N = 130 individuals). Transcripts were coded for the verbal cues details, complications, plausibility, predictability, and overlap (Experiment 1 only) or repetitions (Experiment 2 only). In two lie detection experiments observers read the individual transcripts in Experiment 3 (N = 146) or the collective transcripts in Experiment 4 (N = 138). The verbal cues were more diagnostic of veracity and observers were better at distinguishing between truths and lies in the unexpected than in the expected questions condition, but only when the pair members were interviewed individually.

Back to the future: asking about mental images to discriminate between true and false intentions.

In this study we asked participants to mentally travel back to the future. The participants were asked to remember and report on a mental image of the near future. We predicted that participants who, during an interview, told the truth about their intentions would differ in their descriptions of their mental images compared to participants who lied about their future intentions. We found partial support for this overarching assumption. More specifically, we found that more truth tellers than liars reported to have had a mental image activated during the planning of their intentions. We also showed that liars (vs. truth tellers) found the question on the mental image more difficult to answer. However, they did not differ in other aspects (number of words and amount of details reported, and subjective perception of the mental image activated). The suspects were interviewed twice, with an interval of one week, and in line with our prediction we found that liars' (vs. truth tellers') reports were less consistent over time. This study departures from episodic future thought and aims to contribute to the development of a scientifically based interview protocol for discriminating between true and false intentions.

Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample?

Deception research has shown that analysing verbal content can be effective to distinguish between truths and lies. However, most verbal cues are cues to truthfulness (truth tellers report the cue more than lie tellers), whereas cues to deception (lie tellers report the cue more than truth tellers) are largely absent. The complication approach, measuring complications (cue to truthfulness), common knowledge details (cue to deception), self-handicapping strategies (cue to deception), and the ratio of complications, aims to fill this gap in the literature. The present experiment examined the effectiveness of the complication approach when varying the amount of lying, with an Italian sample. Seventy-eight participants were assigned to one of three different experimental conditions: Truth tellers (telling the truth about the event), embedders (providing a mixture of truthful and false information) and outright lie tellers (providing false information). Participants were interviewed about a past experience concerning an out of the ordinary event. Complications discriminated truth tellers from lie tellers. The absence of significant effects for common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies, the limitations of the experiment and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Does the truth come out in the writing? Scan as a lie detection tool.

We tested the accuracy of Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), a verbal lie detection tool that is used world-wide by federal law enforcement and military agencies. Sixty-one participants were requested to write down the truth, an outright lie or a concealment lie about activities they had just completed. The statements were coded with SCAN and with another verbal lie detection tool, Reality Monitoring (RM). RM discriminated significantly between truth tellers and outright liars and between truth tellers and concealment liars, whereas SCAN did not discriminate between truth tellers and either kind of liar. Implications of the findings for the suitability of SCAN as a lie detection tool are discussed.