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.

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.

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

Background:

Academic research on deception detection has largely focused on the detection of past events. For many applied purposes, however, the detection of false reports about someone’s intention merits attention. Based on the verbal deception detection paradigm, we explored whether true statements on intentions were more detailed and more specific than false statements on intentions, particularly when instructed to be as specific as possible.

Method:

Participants (n = 222) lied or told the truth about their upcoming travel plans either providing ‘as much information as possible’ (standard instructions) or being ‘as specific as possible’ (i.e., mentioning times, locations, places; specific instructions), resulting in four conditions (truthful vs. deceptive intention by standard vs. specific instructions). We collected data via a custom-made web app and performed automated verbal content analysis of participants’ written answers.

Findings:

We did not find a significant difference in the specificity of participants’ statements. The instruction to be as specific as possible promoted more specific information but did not help to discern honest from deceptive flying intentions.

Conclusion:

The experiment reported here attempted to demonstrate automated verbal deception detection of intentions. The difficulty in capturing genuine intentions, and the non-intrusive, non-interactive questioning approach might explain the null findings and raise questions for further research. We conclude with suggestions for a novel framework on semi-interactive information elicitation.