Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter-based interviews

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.

'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.

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 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.

Verbal Deception and the Model Statement as a Lie Detection Tool

We have been reliably informed by practitioners that police officers and intelligence officers across the world have started to use the Model Statement lie detection technique. In this article we introduce this technique. We describe why it works, report the empirical evidence that it works, and outline how to use it. Research examining the Model Statement only started recently and more research is required. We give suggestions for future research with the technique. The Model Statement technique is one of many recently developed verbal lie detection methods. We start this article with a short overview of the-in our view- most promising recent developments in verbal lie detection before turning our attention to the Model Statement technique.

Automated verbal credibility assessment of intentions: The model statement technique and predictive modeling

Recently, verbal credibility assessment has been extended to the detection of deceptive intentions, the use of a model statement, and predictive modeling. The current investigation combines these 3 elements to detect deceptive intentions on a large scale. Participants read a model statement and wrote a truthful or deceptive statement about their planned weekend activities (Experiment 1). With the use of linguistic features for machine learning, more than 80% of the participants were classified correctly. Exploratory analyses suggested that liars included more person and location references than truth‐tellers. Experiment 2 examined whether these findings replicated on independent‐sample data. The classification accuracies remained well above chance level but dropped to 63%. Experiment 2 corroborated the finding that liars' statements are richer in location and person references than truth‐tellers' statements. Together, these findings suggest that liars may over‐prepare their statements. Predictive modeling shows promise as an automated veracity assessment approach but needs validation on independent data.

Recounting a Common Experience: On the Effectiveness of Instructing Eyewitness Pairs

Pairs of eyewitnesses with a content-focused interaction style remember significantly more about witnessed incidents. We examined whether content-focused retrieval strategies can be taught. Seventy-five pairs of witnesses were interviewed thrice about an event. The first and third interview were conducted individually for all witnesses. The second interview was individual, collaborative without instruction, or collaborative with instruction. Pairs in the latter condition were instructed to actively listen to and elaborate upon each other's contributions. The strategy instruction had no effect on retrieval strategies used, nor on the amount or accuracy of reported information. However, pairs who spontaneously adopted a content-focused interaction style during the collaborative interview remembered significantly more. Thus, our findings show that effective retrieval strategies cannot be taught, at least not with the current instructions. During the second interview, we observed collaborative inhibition and error pruning. When considering the total amount of information reported across the first two interviews, however, collaboration had no inhibitory effect on correct recall, yet the error pruning benefits remained. These findings suggest that investigative interviewers should interview witnesses separately first, and then interview pairs of witnesses collaboratively.