The Strategic Meaning of CBCA Criteria From the Perspective of Deceivers

Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment

Research has shown that complications are more common in truth tellers' accounts than in lie tellers' accounts, but there is currently no experiment that has examined the accuracy of observers' veracity judgments when looking at complications. A total of 87 participants were asked to judge 10 transcripts (five truthful and five false) derived from a set of 59 transcripts generated in a previous experiment by Deeb et al. Approximately half of the participants were trained to detect complications (Trained), and the other half did not receive training (Untrained). Trained participants were more likely to look for complications, but they did not detect them accurately, and thus their veracity judgments did not improve beyond Untrained participants' judgments. We discuss that the training may have been too brief or not sensitive enough to enhance decision-making.

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.

Analysing Deception in Witness Memory through Linguistic Styles in Spontaneous Language

The act of lying and its detection have raised interest in many fields, from the legal system to our daily lives. Considering that testimonies are commonly based on linguistic parameters, natural language processing, a research field concerned with programming computers to process and analyse natural language texts or speech, is a topic of interest on this front. This study aimed to examine the linguistic styles of simulated deception and true testimonies collected with the aim of studying witness memory. Study participants were asked to act as a witness of a crime by retelling the story they had just read. Cognitive interviewing techniques were used to collect testimony under two conditions: truth and simulated deception. A sample of 48 participants volunteered to participate in the study. Analyses of the linguistic indicators and content were carried out. Specifically, we performed a comparison of testimonies of the same participant by condition to analyse the variation between (i) lexical and (ii) linguistic features and (iii) content and speech characteristics (disfluencies) depending on the narrative condition. Concerning lexical properties, adjectives were the most-varying grammatical category between truthful and deceptive testimonies. Furthermore, in the linguistic analysis, we observed that truthful testimonies were generally longer than deceptive ones in terms of the number of words and sentences and also characterised by more articulated sentence structures, and these differences were also statistically significant. Regarding the analysis of the content, cognitive criteria (details) and admitting lack of memory were more present in truthful statements. By providing an objective measure, these results are of interest in developing NLP tools for assessing the credibility of testimonies in forensics.

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.

How Information on a Motive to Lie Influences CBCA-Based Ratings and Veracity Judgments

We investigated how information on a motive to lie impacts on the perceived content quality of a statement and its subsequent veracity rating. In an online study, 300 participants rated a statement about an alleged sexual harassment on a scale based on Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA) and judged its veracity. In a 3 × 3 between-subjects design, we varied prior information (motive to lie, no motive to lie, and no information on a motive), and presented three different statement versions of varying content quality (high, medium, and low). In addition to anticipating main effects of both independent variables (motive information and statement version), we predicted that the impact of motive information on both ratings would be highest for medium quality statements, because their assessment is especially ambiguous (interaction effect). Contrary to our hypotheses, results showed that participants were unaffected by motive information and accurately reproduced the manipulated quality differences between statement versions in their CBCA-based judgments. In line with the expected interaction effect, veracity ratings decreased in the motive-to-lie group compared to controls, but only when the medium- and the low-quality statements were rated (truth ratings dropped from approximately 80 to 50%). Veracity ratings in both the no-motive-to-lie group and controls did not differ across statement versions (≥82% truth ratings). In sum, information on a motive to lie thus encouraged participants to consider content quality in their veracity judgments by being critical only of statements of medium and low quality. Otherwise, participants judged statements to be true irrespective of content quality.