Showing papers by "Aldert Vrij published in 2018"

Within-subjects verbal lie detection measures: a comparison between total detail and proportion of complications

Abstract: Method. In the experiment, 53 participants were interviewed. Truth tellers (n = 27) discussed a trip they had made during the last twelve months; liars (n = 26) fabricated a story about such a trip. The interview consisted of an initial recall followed by a model statement (a detailed account of an experience unrelated to the topic of investigation) followed by a post-model statement recall. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications.

Verbal Deception and the Model Statement as a Lie Detection Tool.

Abstract: 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.

Cross-cultural verbal deception

Abstract: Background. ‘Interviewing to detect deception’ research is sparse across different Ethnic Groups. In the present experiment, we interviewed truth tellers and liars from British, Chinese, and Arab origins. British interviewees belong to a low-context culture (using a communication style that relies heavily on explicit and direct language), whereas Chinese and Arab interviewees belong to high-context cultures (communicate in ways that are implicit and rely heavily on context).

Using Unexpected Questions to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit in Interpreter-Based Interviews.

Abstract: We examined whether speech-related differences between truth tellers and liars are more profound when answering unexpected questions than when answering expected questions. We also examined whether the presence of an interpreter affected these results. In the experiment, 204 participants from the USA (Hispanic participants only), Russia, and the Republic of Korea were interviewed in their native language by a native-speaking interviewer or by a British interviewer through an interpreter. Truth tellers discussed a trip they had made during the last twelve months; liars fabricated a story about such a trip. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications. The proportion of complications distinguished truth tellers from liars better when answering unexpected than expected questions, but only in interpreter-absent interviews. The number of details provided did not differ between truth tellers and liars or between interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

Automated verbal credibility assessment of intentions: The model statement technique and predictive modeling.

Abstract: 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.

Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars: the benefit of examining core and peripheral details

Abstract: Research has shown that a model statement elicits more information during an interview and that truth tellers and liars report a similar amount of extra information We hypothesised that veracity differences would arise if the total amount of information would be split up into core details and peripheral details A total of 119 truth tellers and liars reported a stand-out event that they had experienced in the last two years Truth tellers had actually experienced the event and liars made up a story Half of the participants were given a model statement during the interview After exposure to a model statement, truth tellers and liars reported a similar amount of extra core information, but liars reported significantly more peripheral information The variable details becomes an indicator of deceit in a model statement interview protocol as long as a distinction is made between core and peripheral details

Verbal Lie Detection Tools From an Applied Perspective

Abstract: This chapter introduces seven verbal lie detection techniques and discusses whether they are ready for use in investigative interviews: Statement Validity Assessment (SVA), Reality Monitoring (RM), Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA), Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), Verifiability Approach (VA), and Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID). Fourteen questions were developed on which to judge their suitability. There is substantial difference in the extent to which the seven lie detection techniques met these criteria. SCAN (the most frequently used tool in real life of the tools discussed in this chapter) falls short on numerous criteria and therefore in my view unfit for use as a lie detection tool. SVA is a complicated method to learn and use and in that respect RM is preferable. Regarding the imposing cognitive load technique (part of CCA), there is a risk that truth-tellers cannot cope well with the imposing cognitive load demands and, consequently, may provide similar responses as liars. I therefore do not recommend it for use in real life as a stand-alone tool, but it could be used in combination with other techniques. The remaining techniques are either ready for use to date (encouraging interviewees to say more; part of CCA, SUE, and the VA) or ready for use (asking unexpected questions; part of CCA and ACID) if they continue to receive support in empirical research. Ideally this support should come from independent labs.

Police Officers’ Perceptions of Statement Inconsistency:

Abstract: We examined police officers’ (N = 71) perceptions of statement inconsistency types (within-statement, between-statement, statement-evidence, and within-group inconsistencies). Approximately half of the officers reported looking for statement inconsistency to detect deception. Officers generally associated contradictions and omissions with deception, and repetitions and reminiscences with truthfulness, but they were most likely to use contradictions. Officers reported using statement-evidence inconsistency more than any other inconsistency type, and they believed it was the easiest type to assess. Younger officers tended to believe that liars attempt to eliminate within-statement inconsistency unless they are strategically presented with incriminating evidence. Moreover, the majority of officers indicated that they have used drawings to assess inconsistencies with suspects’ verbal statements. Finally, suspects’ criminal history, intelligence, and personality were believed to influence statement (in)consist...

Detecting deception through small talk and comparable truth baselines

Abstract: The present experiment investigates similarities in participants' non-verbal and verbal behaviours when responding to baseline and inves-tigative questions, comparing two different types of baselines. Policeliterature suggests to obtain a baseline through small talk, whereasacademic literature underlines the importance of baseline and inves-tigative themes to be comparable. First, a baseline was obtained(either small talk or comparable), then the investigative questioningstarted. During the investigative questioning, participants eithertruthfully reported a set of actions they had actually performed orlied about them. Findings revealed that truth tellers and liars in thesmall talk condition did not differ in their level of similarity whenresponding to the baseline and investigative questions. In the compa-rable truth condition, levels of verbal similarity between the baselineand investigative questions were higher for truth tellers than for liars,but only for one variable: spatial detail. Results therefore showedthat a small talk baseline should not be used to assess interviewees'credibility, and that a comparable truth baseline, although better thana small talk baseline, is still problematic.

The benefits of a self-generated cue mnemonic for timeline interviewing

Abstract: Obtaining detailed accounts from individuals who have witnessed complex events under challenging encoding conditions presents a difficulty for investigators. In the present research, participants (N = 132) reported their recall of an event witnessed under full or divided attention using a timeline reporting format. Extending the Timeline Technique to assess the relative performance of two additional mnemonics, Self-Generated Cues (SGC) and Other-Generated Cues (OGC), participants provided an account across three Timeline reporting conditions comparing the efficacy of SGC, OGC, and No Cues (control). Mock-witnesses using SGC provided more correct details than mock-witnesses in the OGC or No Cues conditions, under full but not under divided attention conditions. There was no difference between cue conditions with respect to the number of errors reported across attention conditions. Findings show SGC to be a promising addition to interviewing techniques as a retrieval support mnemonic with implications for applied contexts.

Evaluating Credibility of Witnesses – are We Instructing Jurors on Invalid Factors?

Abstract: Co-author Aldert Vrij, Ph.D., an internationally respected expert on evaluating credibility and the European Consortium of Psychological Research on Deception Detection’s contact person, presented an educational lecture program concerning the fallacy of considering nonverbal behavior to evaluate credibility at the 2016 Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges. Many of the judges listening to Dr Vrij, wondered why then, do judges consistently instruct jurors to consider demeanor and other nonverbal behaviors to evaluate witnesses’ credibility? Why do we ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence and continue to give jury instructions contrary to the overwhelming consensus that witness demeanor is not a basis to determine the accuracy or truthfulness of their testimony? Many years ago, co-author Jeannine Turgeon attended United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s lecture “Trial by Jury–In Need of Repair” at The Chautauqua Institute. Justice O’Connor criticized various aspects of our current jury system and offered suggestions for its improvement. She opined that “[j]ust because something has ‘always been done’ a particular way does not mean that is the best way to do it. If common sense tells us to change something, we should change it.”

"I Don't Know How, But I'll Figure It Out Somehow": Future Possible Selves and Aspirations in "At-Risk" Early Adolescents.

Abstract: Fostering positive future selves in mid-adolescence has shown promising results in reducing problematic behaviour, though little work has been done outside the United States or with younger children. We explored the link between future selves and delinquency in a younger sample of boys (Mage = 12, SD = 0.73, N = 126) in the United Kingdom, at the nascent stage of self-identity and anti-social behaviour. Participants, who varied in degree of self-reported delinquency and risk, described their short- and long-term possible selves and strategies to achieve them. Unlike findings for older samples (14+), we found no association between delinquency and future selves. Exposure to criminogenic risk revealed some differences regarding the nature of future selves. Those with delinquency and higher risk had fewer strategies for reaching goals. Findings are discussed in relation to self-identity theory and the timing and nature of interventions for children of this age.

Visuospatial counter-interrogation strategies by liars familiar with the alibi setting

Abstract: This study examines counter-interrogation strategies employed by liars giving false alibis. Participants (N =144) visited a restaurant to buy a sandwich (truth-tellers) or to use it as a false alibi (liars). Half of the liars were informed they might be asked for a drawing of the alibi setting if interviewed (informed liars). Participants spent either 10 minutes (high familiarity condition) or 30 seconds (low familiarity condition) in the restaurant. All participants were asked to provide two visuospatial statements, which were assessed for salient details, non-salient details, betweenstatement consistency, and statement-alibi setting consistency. Informed liars provided significantly more salient and non-salient details than uninformed liars and truth-tellers, particularly in the high familiarity condition. No differences emerged for statement consistency types. The results suggest that liars are more concerned than truth tellers about making a positive impression on the interviewer, and they fail to accurately reflect on truth-tellers’ visuospatial statements. VISUOSPATIAL COUNTER-INTERROGATION STRATEGIES 3 Visuospatial Counter-Interrogation Strategies by Liars Familiar with the Alibi Setting Consider a man who travels by car from the place where he lives to a distant city that he has never visited before. The man books a room in a hotel for one night. On that evening, the man targets a woman walking on the streets, abducts her in his car, and strangles her in a nearby scrapyard. The murderer then goes to a nearby pub for two hours and returns back to the hotel afterwards. On the next day, he goes to his workplace, acting as if nothing has happened. Consider another incident in which a woman murders someone in her neighbourhood and heads immediately afterwards to a festival that is hosted for the first time in the city. The woman stays there for half an hour before going home. Now imagine these two murderers were suspected by the police and questioned about the relevant crime. The suspects say they were at the pub/festival when the crime occurred, giving a false alibi. Investigators may want to establish if the suspects were in the claimed alibi location at the time the crime occurred. This can be determined if detailed questions about the alibi setting are asked. For the first case, investigators may come to know that the murderer booked a room for one night in a hotel situated near the crime location, so if he was in the pub, it would probably have been on the same night. Detailed questions about the suspect’s stay at the pub may clarify whether he was there and the time he might have been there. For the second case, the suspect may also be asked detailed questions about the festival, which has never happened previously in the city. Hence, asking the suspect about the setting, decoration, bands’ appearances and order, among others, would assist officers in understanding whether the suspect was there or not. Now imagine that the same murderers, before committing the crime, explored interview techniques that investigators employ. Knowing the type of questions that officers ask during VISUOSPATIAL COUNTER-INTERROGATION STRATEGIES 4 interviews will help the murderers prepare for the interview and provide convincing responses if they are suspected and questioned. These counter-interrogation strategies are often employed by liars so that they appear credible and avoid detection in investigative interviews (Honts, Raskin, & Kircher, 1994; Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010). Information on investigative interview techniques can be easily found in, amongst others, scholarly work (e.g., Carson, Milne, Pakes, Shalev, & Shawyer, 2007), online websites (e.g., www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents; The National Archives, 2017), and terrorist organisations’ manuals (e.g., The Green Book; Conflict Archive on the INternet, 2016). In the current study, we aim to examine the effectiveness of counter-interrogation strategies when suspects who are highly or poorly familiar with their alibi setting are asked to provide visuospatial statements (e.g., drawings) of the setting. Counter-Interrogation Strategies in Lie Detection Contexts Liars want to make an honest impression on investigative interviewers, so they actively plan and prepare for the interview by anticipating the questions that will be asked and rehearsing responses to them (Clemens, Granhag, & Strömwall, 2013; Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Doering, 2010; Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Granhag, 2010). Preparation enables liars to avoid the need to improvise spontaneous lies (Vrij, Granhag, Mann, & Leal, 2011) and to stick to their cover story during the interview and hence provide a consistent statement (Granhag & Strömwall, 2002; Vrij et al., 2009). Research on counter-interrogation strategies has shown that liars can counter credibility assessment tools if they are acquainted with them. Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and Reality Monitoring (RM) are verbal lie detection tools that assume that statements about experienced events are more detailed and coherent than statements about unexperienced events VISUOSPATIAL COUNTER-INTERROGATION STRATEGIES 5 (Johnson & Raye, 1981; Vrij, 2005, 2008). A study examining the coaching of 180 children and undergraduate students in CBCA and RM revealed that coached liars, but not uncoached liars, obtained similar scores as truth-tellers (Vrij, Akehurst, Soukara, & Bull, 2004). These results confirmed earlier findings by Vrij, Kneller, and Mann (2000) which showed that CBCA coaching helped liars to counter this lie detection tool. Other credibility assessment tools such as EEG scans and polygraph examinations are also susceptible to counter-interrogation strategies (Granhag, Vrij, & Verschuere, 2015; Honts et al., 1994). Liars attempt to control their nonverbal behaviour during interviews by avoiding behaviour commonly associated with deception such as gaze aversion and nervousness (DePaulo et al., 2003; Granhag, Andersson, Strömwall, & Hartwig, 2004; Strömwall & Willén, 2011). However, they do not achieve full control of their nonverbal behaviour, even when explicitly informed about the negative relationship between nonverbal behaviour and deception (Vrij, Semin, & Bull, 1996). Similarly, studies on the verifiability approach have shown that liars fail to provide as many checkable details as truth-tellers following instructions that the interviewer will be verifying information they provide in their statements (Harvey, Vrij, Leal, Lafferty, & Nahari, 2017; Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2014). Overall, these findings suggest that liars attempt to employ several strategies to appear credible, but they do not always succeed in imitating truthtellers’ behaviour and statements. Therefore, it is important to examine possible counterinterrogation strategies and the effect of these strategies on liars’ statements. Visuospatial Statements in Interviews with Suspects Visuospatial statements are increasingly being used as an interview tool in investigative settings and as evidence in courts (Marlow & Hilbourne, 2011). Suspects, particularly liars, who are asked for a visuospatial statement find this report mode more unanticipated and difficult than VISUOSPATIAL COUNTER-INTERROGATION STRATEGIES 6 if asked for a verbal statement (Vrij et al., 2009). When reporting verbally, liars can omit information and provide vague statements (Hartwig, et al., 2011), but when reporting visuospatially, liars have to be detailed and consistent in providing spatial information (i.e., locate objects in their correct location). A study that examined self-generated drawings showed that liars who drew an imagined workplace were significantly less detailed than truth-tellers who drew their actual workplace (Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Fisher, 2012). However, another study that investigated self-generated drawings by police officers revealed that officers in the liar condition did not differ significantly on the number of details from officers in the truth-teller condition (Vrij, Leal, et al., 2010). The researchers explained that liars thought of a familiar setting which may have resulted in the similar number of details provided by liars and truth-tellers. It may therefore be important to examine the type of details and not only the number of details (Mac Giolla, Granhag, & Vernham, 2017). The saliency of details in suspects’ statements has been examined in previous studies (Masip, Blandón-Gitlin, Martínez, Herrero, & Ibabe, 2016; Roos af Hjelmsäter, Öhman, Granhag, & Vrij, 2014). Salient details are defined as central details about an event which are most likely to attract attention, whereas non-salient details are peripheral details about the event that may not be noticeable (Heath & Erickson, 1998). When salient (central) and non-salient (peripheral) aspects of an event were distinguished in visuospatial statements, deceptive triads who fabricated the event together and were then interviewed about it individually, were not consistent with each other about the salient and non-salient details (Roos af Hjelmsäter et al., 2014). In contrast, truth-telling triads who experienced the event together were consistent with each other about the salient details. Hence, truth-tellers focused on, and had a better memory for, VISUOSPATIAL COUNTER-INTERROGATION STRATEGIES 7 salient aspects, so they were able to incorporate those aspects consistently in their statements. This finding is in line with the eyewitness and memory literatures which have established that people tend to correctly remember and consistently report salient details of an event to a greater extent than non-salient details (Herlihy, Scragg, & Turner, 2002; Wright & Stroud, 1998). In sum, visuospatial statements seem to be a promising tool in distinguishing truth-tellers from liars (Mac Giolla et al., 2017). Nonetheless, it is important that investigators take into account the reported salient and non-salient aspects of the

Facilitating Memory-Based Lie Detection in Immediate and Delayed Interviewing: The Role of Mnemonics.

Abstract: We experimentally investigated how different mnemonic techniques employed in an interview conducted immediately after an event affected truth tellers’ and liars’ responses when they were interviewed again after a two-week delay. We also compared how verbal accounts changed over time within truth tellers and liars, and how consistent both groups were. Participants (n = 143) were shown a mock intelligence operation video and instructed either to tell the truth or lie about its contents in two interviews, one of which was immediately after watching the video and the other after a two-weeks delay. In the immediate interview they were asked to provide a free recall and then asked to provide further information via one of three mnemonics: Context Reinstatement, Sketch, or Event-line. In the delayed interview they were asked to provide only a free recall. Truth tellers reported more visual, spatial, temporal and action details than liars both immediately and after a delay. Truth tellers experienced more of a decline in reporting details after a delay than liars, and this decline was affected by the mnemonic used. Truth-tellers thus showed, more than liars, patterns of reporting indicative of genuine memory decay. Liars produced patterns of a ‘stability bias’ instead. Truth tellers and liars were equally consistent between their immediate and delayed statements.

The Devil's Advocate approach: An interview technique for assessing consistency among deceptive and truth-telling pairs of suspects

Abstract: Purpose The aim of this study was to assess statement consistency in pairs of deceptive and truth-telling suspects when the Devil's Advocate approach is implemented. This approach involves asking suspects an ‘opinion-eliciting’ question for arguments that support their opinions followed by a ‘devil's advocate’ question to elicit opposing arguments. On the basis of the confirmation bias and impression management literatures, we predicted that truth-telling pairs would provide more consistent arguments in response to the opinion-eliciting question than to the devil's advocate question. Deceptive pairs were expected to be equally consistent with each other in response to both questions. Method Forty-nine pairs of participants were matched, based on their strong opinions about a controversial topic, and were asked to either tell the truth or lie about their opinions to an interviewer. Pair members were permitted to prepare for the interview together. Each participant was interviewed individually with the devil's advocate approach. Results Prepared truth-telling pairs were more consistent with each other in response to the opinion-eliciting question than to the devil's advocate question. However, and as predicted, deceptive pairs were equally consistent with each other in response to both questions. Conclusions The Devil's Advocate approach seems to be a promising interview technique for assessing consistency among pairs who hold false opinions and pairs who hold true opinions. It also has implications for the consistency heuristic as consistency is not diagnostic of deception or honesty unless the interview technique is taken into consideration.

Are you for real? Exploring language use and unexpected process questions within the detection of identity deception

Abstract: The current study was to test whether Reality Monitoring and language use could distinguish identity liars from truth tellers when answering outcome questions and unexpected process questions. Truth tellers (n = 30) and liars (n = 30) discussed their identity in a recruitment interview. No differences emerged between truth tellers and liars in the details they provided. In terms of language use, liars used more positive language than truth tellers, whilst truth tellers used more cognitive process words than liars. However, neither were more pronounced when asking process questions. Overall, process questions elicited more cognitive process and cause words than outcome questions. Therefore, process questions may be able to contribute to the cognitive load approach. The findings suggest that Reality Monitoring may not be diagnostic when applied to identity deception. We discuss the language use differences in relation to Impression Management theory. UNEXPECTED PROCESS QUESTIONS IN IDENTITY DECEPTION 3 Are You for Real? Exploring Language Use and Unexpected Process Questions Within the Detection of Identity Deception False identities have been acknowledged as a significant contributor to the catastrophic terrorist attacks of 9/11 (Lowe, 2006; Salter, 2004). Yet the enhanced quality of falsified documents and passports has meant that their identification is becoming progressively challenging (Zill, 2002) and, as such, it presents as a national security risk (Sirotich, 2007; Barber, 2015). It is thus deemed necessary to implement further protocol to be able to identify individuals using a false identity. Whilst telling lies is often thought to be relatively easy, the detection of these lies is difficult (DePaulo, 2018). On average, lie detection accuracy rarely exceeds that of chance level, even amongst perceived experts within the field (DePaulo & Pfeifer, 1986; Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991; Kraut & Poe, 1980; Vrij, 2008). Whilst deception research initially concentrated on non-verbal behaviours, evidence has suggested that of the very few cues associated deception, these are usually only weakly correlated and unreliable (DePaulo et al, 2003). Our current understanding from research is that by using theory-based interview techniques, an increase can be seen in the discrimination ability of investigators to identify differences between the verbal accounts of truth tellers and liars (Vrij, 2008; Vrij & Granhag, 2012). For example, the verbal output of liars is often shorter than that of truth tellers (Kraut, 1978; Sporer & Sharman, 2006) and truth tellers often include more detail than liars (Vrij, 2008; 2015). This can be explained by the complexities involved in telling a lie. The cognitive lie detection approach (Vrij, Fisher, & Blank, 2017) theorises that lying is more difficult than truth telling (Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981). In addition, by strategically making the task of lying more difficult, verbal cues to deceit can be magnified (Vrij et al., 2017). There are three main methods which contribute to the cognitive load UNEXPECTED PROCESS QUESTIONS IN IDENTITY DECEPTION 4 approach: (i) imposing cognitive load, (ii) asking the interviewee to say more and (iii) unexpected questions (Vrij et al., 2017). In the current study, we utilised the unexpected questions element of the cognitive lie detection approach (Lancaster, Vrij, Hope, & Waller, 2013; Vrij, Fisher, Mann, & Leal, 2008). Lying about Identity Whilst deception detection is heavily dominated by ‘police-suspect’ interviews whereby individuals lie or tell the truth about a transgression (Vrij & Granhag, 2014), DePaulo and Bond (2012) have highlighted that many individuals lie about their identity. The study of identity deception is highly underrepresented within the deception literature and with increasing numbers of false documents leading to a passport fraud ‘epidemic’ (Paravicini, 2016), the mere examination of identity documents is not a strong enough security measure when dealing with identity fraud. Interpol (2018) reported that from January to September in 2016, their Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database (SLTD) was searched 1.2bn times, resulting in identification of 115,000 positive responses or ‘hits’. Whilst this number represents when a document has been questioned in terms of its authenticity, the number of falsified documents which are not questioned (due to the quality of falsified documents), and in circulation, is difficult to quantify. Research highlights online tools to identify online identity theft and fraud (e.g., Tan, Guo, Cahalane, & Cheng, 2016; Thakur, 2017), but the study of the identity deceiver’s verbal characteristics in face to face scenarios is negligible. What may contribute to the lack of research within identity deception is that identity is complex and can be viewed as both domain-specific and global (Goosens, 2001). Domain-specific identity relates to the unique components of our identity, such as education, occupation, demographics, experiences and autobiographical memory. Global identity is an ideological identity; the way we are viewed as a singular entity, as a combination of each of the elements of our domain-specific identity. UNEXPECTED PROCESS QUESTIONS IN IDENTITY DECEPTION 5 In terms of domain-specific identity deception, scholars have investigated the lies people tell about their autobiographical memories (Elntib, Wagstaff, & Wheatcroft, 2015; Sartori, Agosta, Zogmaister, Ferrara, & Castiello, 2008), occupation (Jupe, Vrij, Leal, & Mann, 2016; Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Fisher, 2012), experiences (Masip, Sporer, Garrido, & Herrero, 2005; Sporer & Sharman, 2006), opinions (Leal, Vrij, Mann, & Fisher, 2010) and intentions (Ask, Granhag, Juhlin, & Vrij, 2013; Vrij, Leal, Mann, & Granhag, 2011; Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Jundi, & Granhag, 2012). However, we are not aware of any published research that looks at individuals who lie about their global identity. In the current study, we aimed to combine questions from different domain-specific areas and autobiographical memories into one single interview, with the aim of gaining insight into how individuals who have to lie about many different elements of their identity (forming their global identity) differ from identity truth tellers. What is novel in the current study is that instead of merely looking at the way individuals respond to questions related to their passport, we aim to ask question which are both unrelated and unexpected as a way of eliciting differences in their verbal responses. This is in addition to allowing participants a week to prepare after being given a false identity (liars only). In comparison with a transgression related police-suspect style interview, an individual who lies about his/her global identity no longer has to fabricate an account of what s/he did, but, instead, has to fabricate a story about whom s/he is (Jupe et al., 2016). This includes combining a variety of domain-specific elements into one global set of responses, including episodic memories. Lying individuals, however, have to not only manage their responses to deceptive episodic memories, but also align these responses to those which are more identity related. We imagine that this process will be more cognitively demanding than when individuals are only asked to lie about domain-specific elements. In addition, all individuals have an identity which they can relate to and which they have built over time. In UNEXPECTED PROCESS QUESTIONS IN IDENTITY DECEPTION 6 contrast, not all individuals have committed a crime. Therefore, the notion of lying about identity relates to lying about something we have all experienced, rather than something we have not. It is how an individual can manipulate this overriding experience into that of an alternative identity in terms of language use and detail, which is of interest in the current study. The ways in which individuals deceive in terms of their identity within law enforcement was addressed by Wang, Chen and Atabakhsh (2004), who examined criminal records database information. They found that to avoid initial prosecution, individuals would manipulate their identity via various strategies such as their name spelling variation, using similar pronunciations, name abbreviations, middle name swapping, and amending their residency, date-of-birth and social security number. Although the study highlighted tactics used by individuals to ‘beat the system’ in terms of database entries, it did not provide insight into verbal differences between identity truth tellers and deceivers during an interview. It also does not reflect how individuals who perhaps enter through borders on false security documents would be identified. If an individual were to enter the country on a falsified document, including only subtle changes to their passport information, the individual is unlikely to flagged by a computerised system. This is even less likely when actual documents are used especially as there is no EU/worldwide system for document inspection (Ensor, 2017). The current research therefore aims to look beyond the digital information relating to an individual’s identity and examines the level of detail provided in verbal accounts of individuals who are asked to lie or tell the truth about who they are. Asking the Unexpected The unanticipated question approach introduced by Vrij et al. (2009) is derived from the notion that liars typically prepare themselves for interviews by formulating answers to anticipated questions (Granhag, Stromwall, & Jonsson, 2003; Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Granhag, UNEXPECTED PROCESS QUESTIONS IN IDENTITY DECEPTION 7 2010). This is an effective strategy as prepared lies are harder to detect than spontaneous lies because they contain fewer cues to deceit (DePaulo et al., 2003; Vrij, Taylor, & Picornell, 2015). We provide a short synopsis of the current unanticipated approach to lie detection. Asking unexpected questions was tested as a w

Interviewing to manage threats: exploring the effects of interview style on information gain and threateners’ counter-interview strategies

Abstract: There is consensus about the importance to engage with, and if possible interview, individuals who threaten to cause harm. However, there exists little research on how to conduct such interviews. This article contributes with an experimental approach on threat management interviewing. We explored what types of counter-interview strategies threateners employ, and we tested the efficacy of two common interview styles (direct interviewing vs. rapport-based interviewing). Participants (N = 120) were interviewed about a nonviolent threat they had made (to press charges against their former employer) and reported what strategies they had used during the interview. No differences were found between the interview protocols for threat management outcomes (i.e., information gain, use of counter-interview strategies, and willingness to discuss or enact the threat). However, the study showed how threateners struck a deliberate balance between proving their stand and disguising implementation details. Critically, individuals with more serious intentions to enact the threat were more inclined to hide information from the interviewer. We argue that it is vital for threat management interviewers to (a) understand what behaviors can be expected from the interviewee, and (b) learn about interview methods that can steer these behaviors toward information gain (which is beneficial to threat assessment) and toward de-escalation (which is the purpose of threat management).

Factors affecting Observers' Accuracy when Assessing Credibility: The Effect of the Interaction between Media, Senders' Competence and Veracity.

Abstract: The present experiment examined how the interaction between senders’ communicative competence, veracity and the medium through which judgments were made affected observers’ accuracy. Stimuli were obtained from a previous study. Observers (N = 220) judged the truthfulness of statements provided by a good truth teller, a good liar, a bad truth teller, and a bad liar presented either via an audio-only, video-only, audio-video, or transcript format. Log-linear analyses showed that the data were best explained via the saturated model, therefore indicating that all the four variables interacted, G2(0) = 0, p = 1, Q2 = 1. Follow-up analyses showed that the good liar and bad liar were best evaluated via the transcript (z = 2.5) and the audio-only medium (z = 3.9), respectively. Both the good truth teller and the bad truth teller were best assessed through the audio-video medium (z = 2.1, good truth teller, z = 3.4, bad truth teller). Results indicated that all the factors interacted and played a joint role on observers’ accuracy. Difficulties and suggestions for choosing the right medium are presented.

Extending the verifiability approach framework: The effect of initial questioning

Abstract: The Verifiability Approach (VA) is a lie detection tool that examines reported checkable details. Across two studies, we attempt to exploit liar’s preferred strategy of repeating information by examining the effect of questioning adult interviewees before the VA. In Study 1, truth tellers (n=34) and liars (n=33) were randomly assigned to either an initial open or closed questioning condition. After initial questioning, participants were interviewed using the VA. In Study 2, truth tellers (n=48) and liars (n=48) were interviewed twice, with half of each veracity group randomly assigned to either the Information Protocol (an instruction describing the importance of reporting verifiable details) or control condition. Only truth tellers revised their initial statement and to include verifiable detail. This pattern was most pronounced when initial questioning was open (Study 1) and when the information protocol was used between recall attempts (Study 2). Thus, liar’s preferred strategy of maintaining consistency between statements appears exploitable using the VA. RUNNING HEAD: The effect of initial questioning on the VA 2 General Audience Summary: Across two studies we explored if the Verifiability Approach – a technique for distinguishing liars from truth tellers using the quantity of verifiable detail reported in interviewees’ statements – can be adapted to elicit consistency-based cues to deception by asking questions before administering the full VA procedure..Truth tellers appeared willing to revise their initial statement and, when prompted, reported previously undisclosed verifiable detail. Conversely, liars appeared unwilling to revise their initial statement to include new verifiable detail.

Collective interviewing: the use of a model statement to differentiate between pairs of truth-tellers and pairs of liars

Abstract: Purpose. The current experiment examined the use of a model statement for aiding lie detection and gathering additional information during interviews in which pairs of suspects were interviewed together (i.e., collective interviewing). A model statement is an example of an answer, unrelated to the topic under investigation, which is played to suspects to demonstrate howmuch information the interviewerwants them to provide in response to the question asked.

Improving the Disclosure of Information in an Investigative Interview : Rapport building and the Physical Environment

Abstract: When you think about an interrogation room, what do you picture? A small, dull, and anxiety-provoking room? You may be right; some interrogation rooms look like this. However, does the room really matter? Is it possible to influence the interviewee through the physical environment of the interrogation? We explore this topic by discussing the current scientific consensus regarding interrogation approaches, and summarize the available literature on how the physical environment influences the disclosure of information.

Facilitating disclosure in intelligence interviews: the joint influence of helpfulness priming and interpersonal approach

Abstract: This study examined the joint influence of helpfulness priming and a helpfulness‐focused interpersonal approach on information disclosure in an intelligence interview. We based the research on the theoretical proposition that consistency between an interviewee's primed dispositions and an interviewer's interpersonal approach would facilitate disclosure. Participants (N = 116) took on the role of an informant with information about an upcoming terror attack. Afterwards, an interviewer solicited information about the attack using an interpersonal approach that exhibited either high (helpfulness‐ focused) or low (control) fit with helpfulness concerns. Prior to the interview, in a seemingly unrelated experiment, we primed participants' helpfulness motivation and assessed their cognitive accessibility to helpfulness‐related constructs. We observed that helpfulness priming increased information disclosure when the helpfulness‐focused interpersonal approach was used but not when the control protocol was used. This research suggests that implementation of an interpersonal approach that complements an interviewee's primed dispositions may function symbiotically with the previous priming to facilitate information disclosure.