Familiarity and lie detection: A replication and extension

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.

A within-statement baseline comparison for detecting lies

To make veracity judgements in individual cases, practitioners may rely on baselining. That is, they may evaluate a statement relative to a baseline statement that is known to be truthful. We investigated whether a within-statement verbal baseline comparison could enhance discriminatory accuracy. Participants (n = 148) read an alibi statement of a mock suspect and provided a veracity judgement regarding a critical two-hour period within the alibi statement. This critical element was either deceptive or truthful and was embedded into an otherwise truthful story. Half of the participants received additional instructions to use the surrounding truthful elements of the statement as a baseline. Instructing participants to make a within-statement baseline comparison did not improve the accuracy of credibility assessments.

Police accuracy in truth/lie detection when judging baseline interviews

Research has shown that a comparable truth baseline (CTB) approach elicits more cues to deception and results in higher accuracy rates than a small talk baseline. Past research focused on laypeople's accuracy rates. We examined whether the CTB also has a positive effect on law enforcement personnel accuracy. In this study, 95 police officers judged 10 interviews, whereby half of the senders told the truth, and the other half lied about a mock undercover mission. Half of the interviews included only questioning about the event under investigation, whereas the other half also included questioning aimed at creating a CTB. Total and truth accuracy did not differ, but observers who watched interviews with a CTB obtained higher lie detection accuracy rates than those who watched interviews without the baseline questioning. Signal detection analyses showed that this effect could be attributed to a decreased response bias in the CTB condition.

Observers' performance at evaluating truthfulness when provided with comparable truth or small talk baselines

Research has shown that the comparable truth baseline technique outperforms the small talk with respect to the elicitation of cues to deception. However, their impact on observers' accuracy has not been evaluated yet. In this experiment, participants (N = 74) watched ten interviews where senders either lied or told the truth about a set of tasks. Half of the interviews were conducted with a comparable truth baseline, the other half with a small talk baseline. As predicted, results showed that observers in the comparable truth baseline condition outperformed participants in the small talk baseline condition in terms of total accuracy rates. The article sheds light on the impact of the two baseline techniques in distinguishing truth-tellers from liars and discourages the use of a small talk baseline. It also provides insights for future studies.

A Longitudinal Study of the Development of Emotional Deception Detection Within New Same-Sex Friendships

Previous studies show that close friends improve at lie detection over time. However, is this improvement due to an increase in the ability to decode the feelings of close friends or a change in how close friends communicate their true and deceptive emotions? In a study of 45 pairs of friends, one friend from each pair (the "sender") was videotaped showing truthful and faked affect in response to pleasant and unpleasant movie clips. The other friend from each pair (the "judge") guessed the true emotions of both the friend and a stranger 1 month and 6 months into the friendship. Judges were better at guessing the true emotions of friends than strangers, and this advantage in judging friends increased among close friends over time. Surprisingly, improvement over time was due mostly to a change in the sender's communication, rather than an increase in judges' ability to decode their friends' feelings.

Deception detection: interrogators' and observers' decoding of consecutive statements

This study is an examination of two forensically important but previously neglected issues in interpersonal deception. First, which cues do lie catchers-who have access to repeated interrogations-pay attention to in order to detect deception? Second, do face-to-face interacting interrogators differ from noninteracting observers in terms of how they perceive a suspect? After watching a staged event, 24 suspects (12 liars and 12 truth tellers) were interrogated three times over a period of 11 days. After the final interrogation, the veracity of each suspect was assessed by his or her interrogator and by 6 observers who had watched the interrogations on video only. The results of the experiment showed that consistency over time was by far the most commonly used cue for justifying veracity judgments. Critically, the predictive accuracy for this cue was alarmingly low. As opposed to results from previous research, the interrogators used verbal cues to a significantly greater extent than did the observers. Furthermore, a probing effect was shown (i.e., probed suspects were perceived as significantly more honest than nonprobed suspects). Finally, limited support for a previously reported honesty effect was obtained (i.e., that interrogators perceive suspects to be more honest than do observers).

Overcoming truth telling as an obstacle to initiating safer sex: clients and health practitioners planning deception during HIV test counseling

This article considers how deception, as a strategy for handling delicate interpersonal situations, is raised and responded to during HIV pretest counseling sessions. Two cases are presented in which clients (CLs) formulate extrarelational sexual encounters as potential obstacles to initiating safer sex practices with long-term relational partners (because reinitiating safer sex with such partners would entail admission of the extrarelational encounters). Close analysis of spoken interaction reveals that CLs display their resistance to initiating safer sex by animating, through hypothetical dialogue, their long-term partners' requests for explanation of the disruption in their usual intimate behaviors; health practitioners attempt to overcome this obstacle of "truth telling" by suggesting deception in its place. This study extends current understandings of the formulation and planning of deceptive messages in the course of actual health promotion interactions. The implications of this investigation suggest that deception may pose a viable, albeit controversial, option when promoting disease prevention behaviors, especially in delicate interpersonal interactions such as not wanting to admit an extrarelational affair.