Using the Model Statement to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit from Native Speakers, Non-native Speakers and Those Talking Through an Interpreter

Arabic within culture forensic interviews: Arabic native speaking lay-observer truth and lie accuracy, confidence, and verbal cue selection

Cross cultural differences in behavioral and verbal norms and expectations can undermine credibility, often triggering a lie bias which can result in false convictions. However, current understanding is heavily North American and Western European centric, hence how individuals from non-western cultures infer veracity is not well understood. We report novel research investigating native Arabic speakers' truth and lie judgments having observed a matched native language forensic interview with a mock person of interest. 217 observers viewed a truthful or a deceptive interview and were directed to attend to detailedness as a veracity cue or given no direction. Overall, a truth bias (66% accuracy) emerged, but observers were more accurate (79%) in the truth condition with the truthful interviewee rated as more plausible and more believable than the deceptive interviewee. However, observer accuracy dropped to just 23% when instructed to use the detailedness cue when judging veracity. Verbal veracity cues attended too were constant across veracity conditions with 'corrections' emerging as an important veracity cue. Some results deviate from the findings of research with English speaking western participants in cross- and matched-culture forensic interview contexts, but others are constant. Nonetheless, this research raises questions for research to practice in forensic contexts centred on the robustness of western centric psychological understanding for non-western within culture interviews centred on interview protocols for amplifying veracity cues and the instruction to note detailedness of verbal accounts which significantly hindered Arabic speaker's performance. Findings again highlight the challenges of pancultural assumptions for real-world practices.

Assessing the efficacy of baselining in deception detection: A comparative analysis of the reality interview and structured interview

Detecting deception is challenging; there exists no universal cue that gives away deceit and people vary greatly in how they communicate. One way to potentially improve deception detection is by comparing multiple responses of the same individual to identify verbal deviations - a method known as baselining. This study examined the impact of baselining embedded in a specific interview protocol to improve lie detection. Participants (N = 179) viewed mock crimes and were instructed to lie or tell the truth about what they witnessed. Next, they were interviewed including a truthful baseline (Reality Interview Modified: RIM), or no baseline (Reality Interview: RI; Structured Interview: SI). Results showed that truth tellers in the SI and RI conditions provided more details than liars during free recall, while no detail differences emerged for the RIM condition. Follow-up questions in all conditions showed truth tellers offered more details than liars. Surprisingly, we found no evidence that verbal deviations from a baseline can be used as effective indicators of deception. In sum, further research is needed to explore the best application of baselining for lie detection purposes.

Cross cultural verbal cues to deception: truth and lies in first and second language forensic interview contexts

Introduction

The verbal deception literature is largely based upon North American and Western European monolingual English speaker interactions. This paper extends this literature by comparing the verbal behaviors of 88 south Asian bilinguals, conversing in either first (Hindi) or second (English) languages, and 48 British monolinguals conversing in English.

Methods

All participated in a live event following which they were interviewed having been incentivized to be either deceptive or truthful. Event details, complications, verifiable sources, and plausibility ratings were analyzed as a function of veracity, language and culture.

Results

Main effects revealed cross cultural similarities in both first and second language interviews whereby all liar's verbal responses were impoverished and rated as less plausible than truthtellers. However, a series of cross-cultural interactions emerged whereby bi-lingual South Asian truthtellers and liars interviewed in first and second languages exhibited varying patterns of verbal behaviors, differences that have the potential to trigger erroneous assessments in practice.

Discussion

Despite limitations, including concerns centered on the reductionary nature of deception research, our results highlight that while cultural context is important, impoverished, simple verbal accounts should trigger a 'red flag' for further attention irrespective of culture or interview language, since the cognitive load typically associated with formulating a deceptive account apparently emerges in a broadly similar manner.

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.

Sleep and interrogation: does losing sleep impact criminal history disclosure?

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Despite centuries of using sleep deprivation to interrogate, there is virtually no scientific evidence on how sleep shapes behavior within interrogation settings. To evaluate the impact of sleeplessness on participants' behavior during investigative interviews, an experimental study examined the impact of sleep restriction on disclosure of past illegal behavior.

METHODS

Healthy participants from a university community (N = 143) either maintained or curbed their sleep (up to 4 h a night) across 2 days with sleep monitored via actigraphy. They were then asked to disclose past illegal acts and interviewed about them. Next, they were reinterviewed following an example of a detailed memory account (model statement). Disclosures were blindly coded for quantity and quality by two independent raters.

RESULTS

Sleep-restricted individuals reported similar offenses, but less information during their disclosure with slightly less precision. Model statement increased disclosure but did not reduce the inhibiting impact of sleep loss. Mediation analysis confirmed the causal role of sleep as responsible for experimental differences in amount of information, and participants' reports suggested impaired motivation to recall information played a role.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that even moderate sleep loss can inhibit criminal disclosure during interviews, point to motivational factors as responsible, and suggest investigators should be cautious when interrogating sleepy participants.

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.

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.

Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation

Proponents of “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the United States have claimed that such methods are necessary for obtaining information from uncooperative terrorism subjects. In the present article, we offer an informed, academic perspective on such claims. Psychological theory and research shows that harsh interrogation methods are ineffective. First, they are likely to increase resistance by the subject rather than facilitate cooperation. Second, the threatening and adversarial nature of harsh interrogation is often inimical to the goal of facilitating the retrieval of information from memory and therefore reduces the likelihood that a subject will provide reports that are extensive, detailed, and accurate. Third, harsh interrogation methods make lie detection difficult. Analyzing speech content and eliciting verifiable details are the most reliable cues to assessing credibility; however, to elicit such cues subjects must be encouraged to provide extensive narratives, something that does not occur in harsh interrogations. Evidence is accumulating for the effectiveness of rapport-based information-gathering approaches as an alternative to harsh interrogations. Such approaches promote cooperation, enhance recall of relevant and reliable information, and facilitate assessments of credibility. Given the available evidence that torture is ineffective, why might some laypersons, policymakers, and interrogation personnel support the use of torture? We conclude our review by offering a psychological perspective on this important question.

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

We examined how the presence of an interpreter during an interview affects eliciting information and cues to deceit, while using a method that encourages interviewees to provide more detail (model statement, MS). A total of 199 Hispanic, Korean and Russian participants were interviewed either in their own native language without an interpreter, or through an interpreter. Interviewees either lied or told the truth about a trip they made during the last twelve months. Half of the participants listened to a MS at the beginning of the interview. The dependent variables were 'detail', 'complications', 'common knowledge details', 'self-handicapping strategies' and 'ratio of complications'. In the MS-absent condition, the interviews resulted in less detail when an interpreter was present than when an interpreter was absent. In the MS-present condition, the interviews resulted in a similar amount of detail in the interpreter present and absent conditions. Truthful statements included more complications and fewer common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies than deceptive statements, and the ratio of complications was higher for truth tellers than liars. The MS strengthened these results, whereas an interpreter had no effect on these results.