Exposing Suspects to Their Sketches in Repeated Interviews to Elicit Information and Veracity Cues / Exponiendo en entrevistas repetidas a los sospechosos a sus esquemas para obtener información e indicios de veracidad

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. (AU)

Antecedentes/objetivo: La investigación ha revelado que el uso de esquemas mientras se lleva a cabo una narración facilita la obtención de información y de indicios verbales de veracidad en una entrevista. Analizamos si estos efectos se mantienen cuando se somete a los sospechosos a su esquema de los hechos en entrevistas repetidas (una semana después). Método: Los participantes (N = 173) completaron una misión simulada y luego contaban la verdad o mentían sobre la misma en una entrevista realizada de modo inmediato (entrevista 1). Los participantes o bien referían verbalmente la misión (condición de recuerdo libre) o la esquematizaban (condición de esquematización). Después de una semana se pidió a todos los participantes un recuerdo libre sin esquematizar (entrevista 2). La mitad de los participantes de la condición de esquematización podían acceder a su esquema mientras referían verbalmente el suceso y la otra mitad no tenía acceso al esquema. Resultados: Los que contaban la verdad daban más información que los que mentían en ambas entrevistas y el esquema facilitaba más información que el recuerdo libre aunque tan solo en la entrevista 1. Aquellos participantes que tenían acceso a su esquema en la entrevista 2 repetían más información que quienes no tenían acceso, aunque el acceso no tenía efecto alguno en indicios de veracidad. Conclusiones: En conclusión, los esquemas incrementaron la obtención de información en la entrevista 1 y el acceso al esquema en la entrevista 2 resultó útil para recordar la información relatada previamente. (AU)

Combining the Devil's advocate approach and verifiability approach to assess veracity in opinion statements / Combinando los enfoques de abogado del diablo y verificabilidad para evaluar la veracidad de declaraciones basadas en opiniones

Aim: We examined the ability to detect lying about opinions with the Devil's Advocate Approach and Verifiability Approach. Method: Interviewees were first asked an opinion eliciting question to argue in favour of their alleged personal view. This was followed by a devil's advocate question to argue against their alleged personal view. Since reasons that support rather than oppose an opinion are more readily available in people's minds, we expected truth tellers' responses to the opinion eliciting question to include more information and to sound more plausible, immediate, direct, and clear than their responses to the devil's advocate question. In lie tellers these patterns were expected to be less pronounced. Interviewees were also asked to report sources that could be checked to verify their opinion. We expected truth tellers to report more verifiable sources than lie tellers. A total of 150 participants expressed their true or false opinions about a societal issue. Results: Supporting the hypothesis, the differences in plausibility, immediacy, directness, and clarity were more pronounced in truth tellers than in lie tellers (answers to eliciting opinion question sounded more plausible, immediate, direct, and clear than answers to the devil's advocate question). Verifiable sources yielded no effect. Conclusions: The Devil's Advocate Approach is a useful tool to detect lies about opinions. (AU)

Objetivos: El artículo analiza la capacidad para detectar el engaño en declaraciones de testigos basadas en opiniones con el enfoque del “abogado del diablo” y el de la verificabilidad. Método: A un grupo de entrevistados se le pidió que argumentaran a favor de su opinión personal. A un segundo grupo se le requirió que, haciendo de abogado del diablo, argumentaran en contra de su punto de vista personal. Dado que los argumentos favorables a la opinión personal son mentalmente más accesibles que los contrarios, esperábamos que las respuestas honestas de los testigos incluyeran más argumentos y resultaran más plausibles, inmediatas, directas y claras que las respuestas haciendo de abogado del diablo. Por su parte, en la condición de respuestas falsas esperábamos que estos patrones fueran menos pronunciados. Además, se solicitó a los entrevistados que informaran de los medios en los que podría verificarse su opinión. Esperábamos que los testigos de la condición de verdad aportaran más fuentes verificables que los de la condición de mentira. Participaron en el estudio un total de 150 sujetos que manifestaron su opinión verdadera o falsa sobre un tema de relevancia social. Resultados: Los resultados confirmaron la hipótesis planteada: los testigos honestos prestaron declaraciones más plausibles, inmediatas, directas y claras que los falsos (las respuestas de los entrevistados que argumentaron a favor de su opinión personal resultaron más plausibles, inmediatas, directas, y claras que las respuestas haciendo de abogado del diablo). Sin embargo, no se observaron efectos del factor testigo en las fuentes de verificación. Conclusiones: El enfoque de abogado del diablo es una herramienta útil para la detección de opiniones falsas. (AU)

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.

Verbal Cues to Deceit when Lying through Omitting Information: Examining the Effect of a Model Statement Interview Protocol / Las señales verbales del engaño cuando se miente mediante omisión de información: análisis del efecto de un protocolo de entrevista Model Statement

Background/objectives: Practitioners frequently inform us that lying through omitting information is relevant to them, yet this topic has been largely ignored by verbal lie detection researchers. Method: In the present experiment participants watched a video recording of a secret meeting between three people. Truth tellers were instructed to recall the meeting truthfully, and lie tellers were instructed to pretend that one person (John) was not there. Participants were or were not exposed to a Model Statement during the interview. The dependent variables were ‘total details’ and ‘complications’. Results: Truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers but lie tellers reported more details than truth tellers. The Model Statement resulted in more complications and details being reported. The Veracity x Model Statement interaction effect was not significant. In terms of self-reported strategies, the main veracity difference was that truth tellers were more inclined to ‘be detailed” than lie tellers. Discussion: We discuss the atypical finding (most details reported by lie tellers) and ideas for future research. (AU)

Antecedentes/objetivos: Con frecuencia los profesionales nos informan que la mentira basada en la ocultación de información es relevante para ellos, si bien quienes investigan la detección de mentiras verbales apenas han prestado atención a este tema. Método: Los participantes en este experimento vieron una grabación en vídeo de una reunión secreta entre tres personas. A unos participantes se les instituyó para que recordaran de verdad el vídeo (sujetos sinceros) y a otros que fingiesen que una persona (John) no estaba allí (sujetos mentirosos). Los participantes fueron sometidos, o no, a una entrevista Model Statement. Se tomaron como variables dependientes los “detalles totales” y las “complicaciones”. Resultados: Los sujetos sinceros daban cuenta de más complicaciones que quienes mentían, aunque estos daban más detalles que los primeros. Las declaraciones basadas en una entrevista Model Statement contuvieron más complicaciones y detalles. La interacción entre los factores veracidad (sujetos sinceros vs. mentirosos) x entrevista Model Statement (sí vs. no) no fue significativa. Teniendo en cuenta las estrategias autoinformadas, la principal diferencia en veracidad era que quienes decían la verdad tendían más a “ser detallistas” que los que mentían. Discusión: Se discuten las implicaciones de este resultado atípico (que los que mentían daban más detalles), así como para las nuevas líneas de la futura investigación. (AU)

Verbal Lie Detection: Its Past, Present and Future.

This article provides an overview of verbal lie detection research. This type of research began in the 1970s with examining the relationship between deception and specific words. We briefly review this initial research. In the late 1980s, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) emerged, a veracity assessment tool containing a list of verbal criteria. This was followed by Reality Monitoring (RM) and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), two other veracity assessment tools that contain lists of verbal criteria. We discuss their contents, theoretical rationales, and ability to identify truths and lies. We also discuss similarities and differences between CBCA, RM, and SCAN. In the mid 2000s, 'Interviewing to deception' emerged, with the goal of developing specific interview protocols aimed at enhancing or eliciting verbal veracity cues. We outline the four most widely researched interview protocols to date: the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), Verifiability Approach (VA), Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA), and Reality Interviewing (RI). We briefly discuss the working of these protocols, their theoretical rationales and empirical support, as well as the similarities and differences between them. We conclude this article with elaborating on how neuroscientists can inform and improve verbal lie detection.

The Model Sketch for Enhancing Lie Detection and Eliciting Information.

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.

The Effect of Using Countermeasures in Interpreter-Absent and Interpreter-Present Interviews

Background: In two experiments we examined whether lie tellers, after reading articles about the Model Statement interview tool and/or about the verbal cues complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies, can successfully use countermeasures by adjusting their statements so that they sound like truth tellers. We also examined whether the presence of an interpreter affect these results. Method: In both experiments, truth tellers discussed a trip they had made; lie tellers fabricated a story. Participants were of Lebanese, Mexican and South-Korean origin. Prior to the interview participants in Experiment 1 did or did not receive information about (i) the working of the Model Statement tool and (ii) three types of verbal detail: complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies. In Experiment 2 the Model Statement Pre-Information factor was replaced by the presence/absence of an interpreter. Results/Conclusions: We found no evidence that lie tellers adjusted their responses after being informed about the Model Statement and / or the types of detail we examined. (AU)

Antecedentes: Se analiza en dos experimentos si las personas que mienten, una vez han leído artículos sobre la entrevista estándar de obtención de la declaración y auto-depreciación sobre los problemas de los indicios verbales verbales, detalles de conocimiento común y las estrategias de autojustificación pueden utilizar eficazmente contramedidas para ajustar sus declaraciones de modo que parezca que dicen la verdad. También analizamos si influye en estos resultados la presencia de un intérprete. Método: En ambos experimentos, los sujetos que decían la verdad hablaban de un viaje que habían hecho, mientras que los que mentían se inventaban una historia. Los participantes eran de origen libanés, mexicano y surcoreano. Antes de la entrevista los participantes en el experimento 1 no recibían información sobre (i) el funcionamiento de la entrevista estándar de obtención de la declaración y (ii) sobre los tres tipos de detalles verbales: complicaciones, detalles del conocimiento común y estrategias de auto-depreciación. En el experimento 2 se sustituyó el factor información previa sobre la entrevista estándar de obtención de la declaración por la presencia/ausencia de un intérprete. Resultados/Conclusiones: Los resultados nos prestaron apoyo a que los que mienten ajusten sus respuestas tras ser informados sobre la entrevista estándar de obtención de la declaración o los tipos de detalles examinados. (AU)

Mapping Details to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit: The Effects of Map Richness / Mapeando los detalles para obtener información e indicios de engaño: los efectos de la riqueza del mapa

Background:Investigators often use maps in forensic interviews to verify a route that was taken by a suspect to obtain additional information, and to assess credibility.Method: We examined the effects of the level of map richness on the elicitation of information and cues to deceit. A total of 112 participants completed a mock secret mission and were asked to tell the truth (to a friendly agent) or to lie (to a hostile agent) about it in an interview. In phase 1 of the interview, all participants provided a verbal free recall of the mission. In phase 2, half of the participants were given a detailed map that included all street names and landmarks of the city where they completed the mission (zoomed in to 80%), and the other half were given a less detailed map that included the names of only major streets and landmarks (zoomed in to 60%). All participants were asked to verbally describe the mission and the route taken while sketching on the map. Results: Compared to lie tellers, truth tellers provided more location, action, temporal, and object details and complications in phase 1, and new person, location, action, and object details and complications in phase 2. Map richness did not have an effect on the amount of information elicited and had an equal effect on truth tellers and lie tellers. Conclusions: This initial experiment in this research area suggests that investigators do not have to worry about the exact level of map detailedness when introducing maps in interviews.

Antecedentes: Los investigadores utilizan a menudo mapas en las entrevistas forenses para verificar el camino seguido por un sospechoso para obtener más información y para valorar la credibilidad. Método: Analizamos los efectos del nivel de riqueza del mapa en la obtención de información e indicios de engaño. Un total de 112 participantes simularon participar en una misión secreta, pidiéndoseles que, en una entrevista, dijeran la verdad (a un agente amistoso) o mintieran (a un agente hostil) sobre la misión. En la fase 1 de la entrevista se recabó de los participantes un recuerdo libre de la misión y en la fase 2 se facilitó a la mitad un mapa detallado con los nombres de las calles y puntos de referencia de la ciudad en la que habían llevado a cabo la misión (ampliado hasta el 80%) y a la otra mitad se les dio un mapa menos detallado solo con los nombres de las calles y puntos de referencia principales (ampliado hasta el 60%). Se pidió a los participantes que describieran verbalmente la misión y el camino seguido al tiempo que la proyectaban en el mapa. Resultados: En comparación con los participantes instruidos para mentir, los instruidos para contar la verdad daban más detalles sobre ubicación, acciones, tiempo y objetos y complicaciones en la fase 1 y detalles nuevos sobre personas, ubicaciones, acciones y objetos y complicaciones en la fase 2. La riqueza del mapa no influía en el volumen de información producida y tenía el mismo efecto, tanto en los instruidos para contar la verdad como una mentira. Conclusiones: Este primer experimento en esta área de investigación sugiere que los investigadores no deben preocuparse por el nivel exacto de detalle del mapa cuando introduzcan estos en las entrevistas.

Plausibility: A Verbal Cue to Veracity worth Examining? / La credibilidad: ¿señal verbal de veracidad que vale la pena analizar?

Truth tellers sound more plausible than lie tellers. Plausibility ratings do not require much time or cognitive resources, but a disadvantage is that it is measured subjectively on Likert scales. The aim of the current paper was to understand if plausibility can be predicted by three other verbal veracity cues that can be measured objectively by counting their frequency of occurrence: details, complications, and verifiable sources. If these objective cues could predict plausibility, observers could be instructed to pay attention to them when judging plausibility, which would make plausibility ratings somewhat more objective. We therefore re-analysed five existing datasets; all of them included plausibility, details and complications and two of them also verifiable sources as dependent variables. Plausibility was positively correlated with all three other tested cues, but mostly predicted by complications and verifiable sources, explaining on average almost 40% of the variance. Plausibility showed larger effect sizes in distinguishing truth tellers from lie tellers than the three other cues, perhaps because the plausibility cue consists of multiple components (complications and verifiable sources). Research has shown that the cues that showed the strongest relationship with veracity typically consisted of multiple components. (AU)

Las personas que dicen la verdad suenan más creibles que las mentirosas. La valoración de la credibilidad no necesita mucho tiempo ni recursos cognitivos, aunque tenga la desventaja de que se mide subjetivamente en escalas Likert. El objetivo de este trabajo es saber si la credibilidad puede predecirse mediante pistas de veracidad verbal que puede medirse objetivamente contando la frecuencia de ocurrencia: detalles, complicaciones y fuentes verificables. Si estas pistas cognitivas pudieran predecir la credibilidad se podría instruir a los observadores a que les presten atención al valorar la credibilidad, lo que haría que esta fuera algo más objetiva. Con esta intención reanalizamos cinco conjuntos de datos, todos los cuales incluían credibilidad, detalles y complicaciones y dos de ellos además fuentes verificables como variables dependientes. La credibilidad correlacionaba positivamente con las otras tres pistas que se probaron, predicha sobre todo por las complicaciones y las fuentes verificables, que explicaban de media casi el 40% de la varianza. La credibilidad mostró tamaños de efecto al distinguir personas que decían la verdad de las que mentían mayores que las otras tres pistas, tal vez porque la señal de plausibilidad tiene varios componentes (complicaciones y fuentes verificables). Según la investigación, las pistas con una relación más estrecha con la veracidad normalmente constaban de diversos componentes. (AU)

The relationship between complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies and veracity: a meta-analysis / La relación de las complicaciones, los detalles de observación común y las estrategias de autojustificación con la veracidad: un meta-análisis

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. (AU)

Los profesionales dicen con frecuencia que la variable "detalles totales" es adecuada para la detección de mentiras en las entrevistas de la vida real. No pueden contar el número de detalles en tiempo real y se desconoce el umbral de detalles necesario para clasificar a alguien como sincero o mentiroso. Los autores comenzaron a abordar estos temas analizando tres nuevos indicadores verbales de veracidad: las complicaciones, los detalles de conocimiento público y las estrategias de falta de capacidad. Se presenta un meta-análisis de estas tres variables y se comparan los resultados con los "detalles totales". Los sujetos que dicen la verdad dan más detalles (d = 0.28 hasta d = 0.45) y complicaciones (d = 0.51 hasta d = 0.62) y menos detalles de conocimiento público (d = -0.40 hasta d = -0.46) y estrategias de justificación (d = -0.37 hasta d = -0.50) que los que mienten. Las complicaciones resultaron ser el mejor indicador diagnóstico de veracidad. Los resultados fueron iguales en la primera entrevista en recuerdo libre y en la segunda entrevista, en la que solo se analizaba información nueva. No influyeron en los resultados cuatro moderadores: el escenario, la motivación, la modalidad y la técnica de entrevista. Como conclusión, las complicaciones parecen ser un buen indicador de veracidad aunque es necesaria más investigación. Se discuten las futuras líneas de investigación. (AU)

Combining verbal veracity assessment techniques to distinguish truth tellers from lie tellers / Combinando técnicas verbales de evaluación de la veracidad para discriminar testimonios verdaderos de falsos

Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA) is a verbal lie detection tool consisting of several interview techniques. These techniques have been examined separately but never together. Reflecting the dynamic nature of CCA we combined several of the techniques (free recall followed by a model statement, followed by a reverse order instruction, and followed by a sketch instruction). We examined the new information provided after each stage of the interview and also compared the information provided in the initial recall with the information provided after the entire interview. A total of 47 truth tellers and 47 lie tellers went on a mission. Truth tellers were asked to report their mission truthfully, whereas lie tellers were requested to lie about several aspects of the mission. We measured the total units of information (total details) provided in the interview and the number of complications reported. The results indicate that the pre-registered hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) was supported for complications. Truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers in each stage of the interview and the difference was more pronounced after the entire interview than after the free recall. As a conclusion, CCA was an effective lie detection method when complications were taken into account

La evaluación cognitiva de la credibilidad (ECC) es una herramienta verbal de detección de mentiras que incluye varias técnicas de entrevista. Dichas técnicas se han examinado por separado pero nunca juntas. Para reflejar el carácter dinámico de la ECC combinamos varias de las técnicas (recuerdo libre seguido de una declaración tipo, seguido de una instrucción de recuerdo en orden inverso, y de una instrucción para que hagan un sketch -esquema- durante la narración del evento). Analizamos la información nueva proporcionada tras cada etapa de la entrevista y también comparamos la información procedente del recuerdo inicial con la aportada por toda la entrevista. Un total de 47 sujetos que decían la verdad y 47 que mentían fueron enviados a una misión. A los participantes de la condición de testimonio verdadero se les pidió que informaran de su misión de modo veraz, mientras que los de la condición de mentira se les solicitó que mintieran sobre distintos aspectos de la misión. Se midió el total de unidades de información (detalles totales) de la entrevista y el número de complicaciones de las que se informaba. Los resultados mostraron que los participantes de la condición de verdad informaban de más detalles y complicaciones (hipótesis 1) en cada fase de la entrevista siendo las mayores diferencias tras la entrevista global que tras el recuerdo libre. En conclusión, la categoría complicaciones de la ECC es eficaz en la detección de la mentira

'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.

The effects of sketching while narrating on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews.

Sketching while narrating is effective for eliciting information and veracity cues in single interviews. In the current research, we tested this technique in multiple interviews. Participants were interviewed three times over three weeks about a genuine (truth tellers) or a fabricated (lie tellers) memorable event. They sketched while narrating in Week 1, Week 2, Weeks 1 and 2, or not at all (verbal statement only). Statements were coded for total, core, peripheral, and common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies, complications, plausibility, and proportions of complications and core details. In the third interview and across interviews, the Sketch instruction resulted in a higher proportion of core details. Truth tellers reported more total and core details and complications and fewer common knowledge details and exhibited a higher proportion of complications than lie tellers. Truth tellers' stories also sounded more plausible than lie tellers' stories. The interaction effects were not significant. Thus, sketching while narrating seemed to have a similar effect on truth tellers and lie tellers in the current study.

Amplifying recall after delays via initial interviewing: Inoculating truth-tellers' memory as a function of encoding quality.

Typically, truth-tellers report more detailed statements when interviewed immediately, compared to after delays (displaying forgetting), whereas liars report statements containing similar amounts of detail when interviewed immediately or after a delay (displaying a metacognitive error). Accordingly, the diagnostic utility of the 'richness-of-detail' cue is reduced after delays. We investigated if initial interviewing can facilitate lie-detection using the richness-of-detail cue in sub-optimal memorial conditions, that is, when (i) interviewing occurred after a three-week delay and (ii) truth-teller's attention during encoding was manipulated. Participants (n = 152) witnessed an interaction, that was meaningful to (and intentionally encoded by) liars (n = 50) and half of truth-tellers (n = 51), but meaningless (and incidentally encoded by) the remaining truth-tellers (n = 51). Participants were interviewed after three weeks. Half of the intentional liars and half of the intentional and incidental truth-tellers were also interviewed immediately (initial interview-present condition), whereas the remaining participants received no immediate interview (initial interview-absent condition). Results showed intentional and incidental truth-tellers reported after three weeks more detail in the initial interview-present (versus absent) condition, whereas intentional liars' statements were unaffected by initial interviewing condition. After three weeks, more intentional liars and intentional truth-tellers were correctly distinguished in the initial interview-present (versus absent) condition.

The efficacy of using countermeasures in a model statement interview / La eficacia del uso de contramedidas en una entrevista de declaración modelo

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

En un experimento de contramedidas examinamos hasta qué punto los mentirosos que reciben información sobre la Declaración modelo y la proporción de complicaciones que presenta (complicaciones / complicaciones + detalles de conocimiento general + estrategias de autoobstaculización) pueden ajustar sus respuestas con éxito para que parezca que dicen la verdad. Los que dicen la verdad declararon sobre un viaje que habían hecho; los mentirosos inventaron una historia. Los participantes eran de origen libanés, mexicano y surcoreano. Antes de la entrevista habían recibido o no información sobre (I) el funcionamiento de la Declaración modelo y (II) tres tipos de detalles verbales: complicaciones, detalles de conocimiento general y estrategias de autoobstaculización. No encontramos evidencia de que los mentirosos se parecieran a los que dicen la verdad después de ser informados sobre la Declaración modelo y los tipos de detalle que examinamos. En realidad, las diferencias de veracidad fueron semejantes en todas las condiciones experimentales: los que decían la verdad informaron con mayor detalle y de más complicaciones y obtuvieron una mayor puntuación en la proporción de complicaciones que los mentirosos

The effects of a model statement on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews.

Researchers started developing interview techniques to enhance deception detection in forensic settings. One of those techniques is the Model Statement, which has been shown to be effective for eliciting information and cues to deception in single interviews. In the current research, we focused on the effect of the Model Statement in multiple interviews. Participants (N = 243) were interviewed three times-each time one week apart-about a genuine (truth tellers) or fabricated (lie tellers) memorable event. They listened to a Model Statement at Time 1, Time 2, Times 1 and 2, or not at all. Hypotheses focused on participants' verbal reports at Time 3 and on unique details provided across the three interviews. In both instances, truth tellers provided more core and total details and complications and fewer common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies and obtained higher proportion scores of (i) complications and (ii) core details than lie tellers. Complications and proportion of complications were the most diagnostic cues. The Model Statement was effective only when presented at Time 1, resulting in more common knowledge details. No Veracity × Model Statement interaction effects emerged.

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.

Applying the verifiability approach to deception detection in alibi witness situations.

The application of alibi witness scenarios to deception detection has been overlooked. Experiment 1 was a study of the verifiability approach in which truth-telling pairs completed a mission together, whereas in lying pairs one individual completed this mission alone and the other individual committed a mock theft. All pairs were instructed to convince the interviewer that they completed the mission together by writing individual statements on their own followed by a collective statement together as a pair. In the individual statements, truth-telling pairs provided more checkable details that demonstrated they completed the mission together than lying pairs, whereas lying pairs provided more uncheckable details than truth-telling pairs. The collective statements made truth-telling pairs provide significantly more checkable details that demonstrated they were together in comparison to the individual statements, whereas no effect was obtained for lying pairs. Receiver Operating Characteristic curves revealed high accuracy rates for discriminating between truths and lies using the verifiability approach across all statement types. Experiment 2 was a lie detection study whereby observers' abilities to discriminate between truths and lies using the verifiability approach were examined. This revealed that applying the verifiability approach to collective statements improved observers' ability to accurately detect deceit. We suggest that the verifiability approach could be used as a lie detection technique and that law enforcement policies should consider implementing collective interviewing.

Amplifying deceivers' flawed metacognition: Encouraging disclosures after delays with a model statement.

Truth tellers provide less detail in delayed than in immediate interviews (likely due to forgetting), whereas liars provide similar amounts of detail in immediate and delayed interviews (displaying a metacognitive stability bias effect). We examined whether liar's flawed metacognition after delays could be exploited by encouraging interviewees to provide more detail via a Model Statement. Truthful and deceptive participants were interviewed immediately (n = 78) or after a three-week delay (n = 78). Half the participants in each condition listened to a Model Statement before questioning. In the Immediate condition, truth tellers provided more details than liars. This pattern was unaffected by the Model Statement. In the Delayed condition, truth tellers and liars provided a similar amount of detail in the Model Statement-absent condition, whereas in the Model Statement-present condition, liars provided more details than truth tellers.

Eliciting Response Bias Within Forced Choice Tests to Detect Random Responders.

The Forced Choice Test (FCT) can be used to detect malingered loss of memory or sensory deficits. In this test, examinees are presented with two stimuli, one correct and one incorrect, in regards to a specific event or a perceptual discrimination task. The task is to select the correct answer alternative, or guess if it is unknown. Genuine impairment is associated with test scores that fall within chance performance. In contrast, malingered impairment is associated with purposeful avoidance of correct information, resulting in below chance performance. However, a substantial proportion of malingerers intentionally randomize their responses, and are missed by the test. Here we examine whether a 'runs test' and a 'within test response 'bias' have diagnostic value to detect this intentional randomization. We instructed 73 examinees to malinger red/green blindness and subjected them to a FCT. For half of the examinees we manipulated the ambiguity between answer alternatives over the test trials in order to elicit a response bias. Compared to a sample of 10,000 cases of computer generated genuine performance, the runs test and response bias both detected malingered performance better than chance.