Eliciting cues to false intent: a new application of strategic interviewing

Introducing the high-context communication style interview protocol to detect deception in pairs

In four experiments, we examined whether pairs of truth tellers could be distinguished from pairs of lie tellers by taking advantage of the fact that only pairs of truth tellers can refer to shared events by using brief expressions (high-context communication style). In Experiments 1 and 2, pairs of friends and pairs of strangers pretending to be friends answered (i) questions they likely had expected to be asked (e.g., 'How did you first meet'?) and (ii) unexpected questions (e.g., 'First, describe a shared event in a few words. Then elaborate on it'). Pairs were interviewed individually (Experiment 1, N = 134 individuals) or collectively (Experiment 2, N = 130 individuals). Transcripts were coded for the verbal cues details, complications, plausibility, predictability, and overlap (Experiment 1 only) or repetitions (Experiment 2 only). In two lie detection experiments observers read the individual transcripts in Experiment 3 (N = 146) or the collective transcripts in Experiment 4 (N = 138). The verbal cues were more diagnostic of veracity and observers were better at distinguishing between truths and lies in the unexpected than in the expected questions condition, but only when the pair members were interviewed individually.

Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions

In this study, we propose an approach to detect deception during investigative interviews by integrating response latency and error analysis with the unexpected question technique. Sixty participants were assigned to an honest (n = 30) or deceptive group (n = 30). The deceptive group was instructed to memorize the false biographical details of a fictitious identity. Throughout the interviews, participants were presented with a randomized sequence of control, expected, and unexpected open-ended questions about identity. Responses were audio recorded for detailed examination. Our findings indicate that deceptive participants showed markedly longer latencies and higher error rates when answering expected (requiring deception) and unexpected questions (for which premeditated deception was not possible). Longer response latencies were also observed in participants attempting deception when answering control questions (which necessitated truthful answers). Moreover, a within-subject analysis highlighted that responding to unexpected questions significantly impaired individuals' performance compared to answering control and expected questions. Leveraging machine-learning algorithms, our approach attained a classification accuracy of 98% in distinguishing deceptive and honest participants. Additionally, a classification analysis on single response levels was conducted. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of merging response latency metrics and error rates with unexpected questioning as a robust method for identity deception detection in investigative interviews. We also discuss significant implications for enhancing interview strategies.

When the Evidence Is Incorrect: an Exploration of What Happens When Interviewers Unwittingly Present Inaccurate Information in Interviews with Suspects

Skillfully presenting evidence/information to suspects is one of the few interviewing techniques that increases the likelihood of guilty suspects providing information or making a confession, without making innocent ones do so as well. It is important that this evidence/information is correct, since deliberately disclosing incorrect evidence poses some risks. Also, in real-life interviews, police interviewers may unwittingly disclose incorrect evidence, for example when a witness was mistaken and provided the police with incorrect information. The present study examined the behavior of fifty police interviewers in interviews with "suspects" of a scripted crime: what is their response when the interviewees try to explain to them that some of the evidence/information just disclosed by them is incorrect? Eleven interviewers responded adaptively (by actively picking up on this new information), 35 responded in a neutral way and four responded maladaptively (by discrediting the interviewee's claim). Experience and a full interview training had a significant negative relationship with adaptiveness. These results indicate that, when preparing and conducting interviews with suspects, greater awareness is needed of the possibility that some of the evidence/information that is to be disclosed could be incorrect, and therefore it is crucial that suspects' responses which suggest such may be the case are taken into account.

Unanticipated questions can yield unanticipated outcomes in investigative interviews

Asking unanticipated questions in investigative interviews can elicit differences in the verbal behaviour of truth-tellers and liars: When faced with unanticipated questions, liars give less detailed and consistent responses than truth-tellers. Do such differences in verbal behaviour lead to an improvement in the accuracy of interviewers’ veracity judgements? Two empirical studies evaluated the efficacy of the unanticipated questions technique. Experiment 1 compared two types of unanticipated questions (questions regarding the planning of a task and questions regarding the specific spatial and temporal details associated with the task), assessing the veracity judgements of interviewers and verbal content of interviewees’ responses. Experiment 2 assessed veracity judgements of independent observers. Overall, the results provide little support for the technique. For interviewers, unanticipated questions failed to improve veracity judgement accuracy above chance. Reality monitoring analysis revealed qualitatively distinct information in the responses to the two unanticipated question types, though little distinction between the responses of truth-tellers and liars. Accuracy for observers was greater when judging transcripts of unanticipated questions, and this effect was stronger for spatial and temporal questions than planning questions. The benefits of unanticipated questioning appear limited to post-interview situations. Furthermore, the type of unanticipated question affects both the type of information gathered and the ability to detect deceit.

The Presence of 'Um' as a Marker of Truthfulness in the Speech of TV Personalities

The aim of this study is to determine whether the presence of the interjection 'um' can distinguish between the deceptive and truthful speech of individuals who are practised in the art of impression management. A total of 50 truthful and 61 deceptive statements were extracted from the speech of celebrities participating in a televised comedy panel show where celebrity guests try to convince an opposing team of their truthfulness. Participants' use of 'um' (measured as a percentage of the total word count of each statement) was analysed. The results show that, on average, 'um' was used almost three times as often in the speakers' true statements compared to their false ones. A discriminant analysis revealed that the presence of 'um' is more effective than human judgement alone in determining veracity. These findings suggest that the presence of the filler 'um' in speech is useful in the identification of true versus false oral statements.

A reverse order interview does not aid deception detection regarding intentions

Promising recent research suggests that more cognitively demanding interviews improve deception detection accuracy. Would these cognitively demanding techniques work in the same way when discriminating between true and false future intentions? In Experiment 1 participants planned to complete a task, but instead were intercepted and interviewed about their intentions. Participants lied or told the truth, and were subjected to high (reverse order) or low (sequential order) cognitive load interviews. Third-party observers watched these interviews and indicated whether they thought the person was lying or telling the truth. Subjecting participants to a reverse compared to sequential interview increased the misidentification rate and the appearance of cognitive load in truth tellers. People lying about false intentions were not better identified. In Experiment 2, a second set of third-party observers rated behavioral cues. Consistent with Experiment 1, truth tellers, but not liars, exhibited more behaviors associated with lying and fewer behaviors associated with truth telling in the reverse than sequential interview. Together these results suggest that certain cognitively demanding interviews may be less useful when interviewing to detect false intentions. Explaining a true intention while under higher cognitive demand places truth tellers at risk of being misclassified. There may be such a thing as too much cognitive load induced by certain techniques

Statements about true and false intentions: using the Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences

This study investigates the combined effect of the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the unanticipated questions approach on the magnitude of the elicited cues to true and false intentions. The participants (N = 125) planned for either a mock crime or a non-criminal event, half of them were interviewed with a standard interview (SI) and half with the CI. All participants were asked one set of questions targeting their intentions (anticipated questions) and one set of questions targeting the phase in which they planned their stated intentions (unanticipated questions). As predicted, the questions about the planning phase were perceived as unanticipated by both liars and truth-tellers. Furthermore, and as predicted, the truth-tellers' (vs. the liars') answers to the unanticipated questions were significantly more detailed. Importantly, and in line with our predictions, for the answers given to questions about the planning-phase, liars and truth-tellers differed more clearly in the CI-condition than in the SI-condition, indicating that the CI indeed magnified the differences between liars and truth-tellers. In addition, and as predicted, the truth-tellers' (vs. the liars') descriptions of their intentions were more characterized by information related to how to attain the stated goal.

Preventing Future Crimes

This review paper examines the growing body of research on the psycho-legal study of true and false intentions – a typically neglected area within the field of deception detection. The extant studies are thematically grouped into four main topics: (i) physiological measures; (ii) implicit measures; (iii) strategic interviewing; and (iv) studies examining episodic future thought (EFT) and mental images. The benefits and limitations, and underlying theory of the respective approaches are discussed. The paper also provides a note on relevant theory, specific for intention research, and recommendations for future research directions. Findings from experimental research are related to the applied context.

Detecting false intent using eye blink measures

Eye blink measures have been shown to be diagnostic in detecting deception regarding past acts. Here we examined—across two experiments with increasing degrees of ecological validity—whether changes in eye blinking can be used to determine false intent regarding future actions. In both experiments, half of the participants engaged in a mock crime and then transported an explosive device with the intent of delivering it to a “contact” that would use it to cause a disturbance. Eye blinking was measured for all participants when presented with three types of questions: relevant to intent to transport an explosive device, relevant to intent to engage in an unrelated illegal act, and neutral questions. Experiment 1 involved standing participants watching a video interviewer with audio presented ambiently. Experiment 2 involved standing participants questioned by a live interviewer. Across both experiments, changes in blink count during and immediately following individual questions, total number of blinks, and maximum blink time length differentiated those with false intent from truthful intent participants. In response to questions relevant to intent to deliver an explosive device vs. questions relevant to intent to deliver illegal drugs, those with false intent showed a suppression of blinking during the questions when compared to the 10 s period after the end of the questions, a lower number of blinks, and shorter maximum blink duration. The results are discussed in relation to detecting deception about past activities as well as to the similarities and differences to detecting false intent as described by prospective memory and arousal.

Reaction time measures in deception research: comparing the effects of irrelevant and relevant stimulus-response compatibility

Evidence regarding the validity of reaction time (RT) measures in deception research is mixed. One possible reason for this inconsistency is that structurally different RT paradigms have been used. The aim of this study was to experimentally investigate whether structural differences between RT tasks are related to how effective those tasks are for capturing deception. We achieved this aim by comparing the effectiveness of relevant and irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) tasks. We also investigated whether an intended but not yet completed mock crime could be assessed with both tasks. Results showed (1) a larger compatibility effect in the relevant SRC task compared to the irrelevant SRC task, (2) for both the completed and the intended crime. These results were replicated in a second experiment in which a semantic feature (instead of color) was used as critical response feature in the irrelevant SRC task. The findings support the idea that a structural analysis of deception tasks helps to identify RT measures that produce robust group effects, and that strong compatibility effects for both enacted crimes as well as merely intended crimes can be found with RT measures that are based on the manipulation of relevant SRC.

The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions

In recent years researchers have started to focus on lying about intentions (Granhag, 2010). In the present experiment participants were interviewed about their forthcoming trip. We tested the hypothesis that liars (N=43) compared to truth tellers (N=43) would give fewer details to unexpected questions about planning, transportation and the core event, but an equal amount or more detail to expected questions about the purpose of the trip. We also tested the hypothesis that participants who had previously experienced the intention (i.e., they had made such a trip before) would give more detail than those who had never experienced the intended action. The unexpected question hypothesis was supported, whereas the previous experience effect only emerged in interactions. The benefit of using different types of questions for lie detection purposes is discussed.