Detection of Concealment in an Information-Gathering Interview

Police suspect interviews with autistic adults: The impact of truth telling versus deception on testimony

Investigative interviews by police are socially and cognitively demanding encounters, likely presenting significant challenges to those on the autism spectrum. Behavioral and communication differences mean that autistic people may also be more likely to be perceived as deceptive in the context of an investigative interview. In the present study, 32 autistic and 33 (age and IQ-matched) non-autistic adults took part in a novel virtual burglary scenario in either an 'innocent' or 'guilty' condition. In a subsequent mock-police interview, innocent suspects were instructed to tell the truth about what they did, while guilty suspects were instructed to lie in order to convince the interviewer of their innocence. In the mock-interviews, innocent autistic mock-suspects reported fewer details that would support their innocence than non-autistic mock-suspects, although both innocent and guilty autistic and non-autistic mock-suspects reported similar levels of investigation-relevant information and had similar levels of statement-evidence consistency. In post-interview questionnaires, innocent and guilty autistic mock-suspects self-reported greater difficulty in understanding interview questions, higher anxiety and perceived the interview as less supportive than non-autistic participants. Implications for investigative interviewing with autistic suspects and cues to deception are discussed.

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 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.

It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language

Individual differences in lie detection remain poorly understood. Bond and DePaulo’s meta-analysis examined judges (receivers) who were ascertaining lies from truths and senders (deceiver) who told these lies and truths. Bond and DePaulo found that the accuracy of detecting deception depended more on the characteristics of senders rather than the judges’ ability to detect lies/truths. However, for many studies in this meta-analysis, judges could hear and understand senders. This made language comprehension a potential confound. This paper presents the results of two studies. Extending previous work, in Study 1, we removed language comprehension as a potential confound by having English-speakers (N = 126, mean age = 19.86) judge the veracity of German speakers (n = 12) in a lie detection task. The twelve lie-detection stimuli included emotional and non-emotional content, and were presented in three modalities–audio only, video only, and audio and video together. The intelligence (General, Auditory, Emotional) and personality (Dark Triads and Big 6) of participants was also assessed. In Study 2, a native German-speaking sample (N = 117, mean age = 29.10) were also tested on a similar lie detection task to provide a control condition. Despite significantly extending research design and the selection of constructs employed to capture individual differences, both studies replicated Bond and DePaulo’s findings. The results of Study1 indicated that removing language comprehension did not amplify individual differences in judge’s ability to ascertain lies from truths. Study 2 replicated these results confirming a lack of individual differences in judge’s ability to detect lies. The results of both studies suggest that Sender (deceiver) characteristics exerted a stronger influence on the outcomes of lie detection than the judge’s attributes.