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.
•Truth tellers and lie tellers report different details in multiple interviews.•Sketching while narrating encourages interviewees to focus on core details.•This focus on core details is evident across multiple interviews.
Keywords: Lying about opinions Plausibility Immediacy Directness Clarity ABSTRACT Aim: We examined the ability to detect lying about opinions with the Devil's Advocate Approach and Verifiability ...Approach. 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. To date, four widely examined interview protocols are available and they all assess verbal cues to deceit (Vrij, Granhag, et al., 2022): assessment criteria indicative of deception (Bogaard et al., 2019; Colwell et al., 2015), cognitive credibility assessment (Vrij et al., 2 017 ), strategic use of evidence (Granhag & Hartwig, 2015), which includes the variant tactical use of evidence (Dando & Bull, 2011), and the verifiability approach (Nahari, 2019). The devil's advocate approach has been examined only twice with single interviewees (Leal et al., 2010; Mann et al., 2022) and needs replication.
Antecedentes/otjetivo: 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.
We examined police officers’ (N = 71) perceptions of statement inconsistency types (within-statement, between-statement, statement-evidence, and within-group inconsistencies). Approximately half of ...the officers reported looking for statement inconsistency to detect deception. Officers generally associated contradictions and omissions with deception, and repetitions and reminiscences with truthfulness, but they were most likely to use contradictions. Officers reported using statement-evidence inconsistency more than any other inconsistency type, and they believed it was the easiest type to assess. Younger officers tended to believe that liars attempt to eliminate within-statement inconsistency unless they are strategically presented with incriminating evidence. Moreover, the majority of officers indicated that they have used drawings to assess inconsistencies with suspects’ verbal statements. Finally, suspects’ criminal history, intelligence, and personality were believed to influence statement (in)consistency. These findings are discussed in light of the literature on statement inconsistency, and recommendations regarding the applied use of statement inconsistency types are offered.
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.
Las personas que dicen la verdad suenan ms crebles que las mentirosas. La valoracin 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 podra instruir a los observadores a que les presten atencin al valorar la credibilidad, lo que hara que esta fuera algo ms objetiva. Con esta intencin reanalizamos cinco conjuntos de datos, todos los cuales incluan credibilidad, detalles y complicaciones y dos de ellos adems 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 mostr tamaos de efecto al distinguir personas que decan la verdad de las que mentan mayores que las otras tres pistas, tal vez porque la seal de plausibilidad tiene varios componentes (complicaciones y fuentes verificables). Segn la investigacin, las pistas con una relacin ms estrecha con la veracidad normalmente constaban de diversos componentes.
Antecedentes/objetivos: Con frecuencia los profesionales nos informan que la mentira basada en la ocultación de informa ción 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 per sonas. 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.
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.
Received 20 August 2021 Accepted 1 April 2022 Available online 18 May 2022 Keywords: Countermeasures Information gathering Deception Checkable sources Plausibility ABSTRACT 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. 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. ...lie tellers may not be willing to add complications to their stories. Other verbal veracity assessment tools, such as Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA; Amado et al., 2015; Amado et al., 2016; Köhnken & Steller, 1988; Volbert & Steller, 2014) are not based on physical evidence.
PDF
