Showing papers by "Aldert Vrij published in 2020"

Combining verbal veracity assessment techniques to distinguish truth tellers from lie tellers

Abstract: espanolRESUMEN La evaluacion cognitiva de la credibilidad (ECC) es una herramienta verbal de deteccion de mentiras que incluye varias tecnicas de entrevista. Dichas tecnicas se han examinado por separado pero nunca juntas. Para reflejar el caracter dinamico de la ECC combinamos varias de las tecnicas (recuerdo libre seguido de una declaracion tipo, seguido de una instruccion de recuerdo en orden inverso, y de una instruccion para que hagan un sketch -esquema- durante la narracion del evento). Analizamos la informacion nueva proporcionada tras cada etapa de la entrevista y tambien comparamos la informacion procedente del recuerdo inicial con la aportada por toda la entrevista. Un total de 47 sujetos que decian la verdad y 47 que mentian fueron enviados a una mision. A los participantes de la condicion de testimonio verdadero se les pidio que informaran de su mision de modo veraz, mientras que los de la condicion de mentira se les solicito que mintieran sobre distintos aspectos de la mision. Se midio el total de unidades de informacion (detalles totales) de la entrevista y el numero de complicaciones de las que se informaba. Los resultados mostraron que los participantes de la condicion de verdad informaban de mas detalles y complicaciones (hipotesis 1) en cada fase de la entrevista siendo las mayores diferencias tras la entrevista global que tras el recuerdo libre. En conclusion, la categoria complicaciones de la ECC es eficaz en la deteccion de la mentira. EnglishABSTRACT Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA) is a verbal lie detection tool consisting of several interview techniques. These techniques have been examined separately but never together. Reflecting the dynamic nature of CCA we combined several of the techniques (free recall followed by a model statement, followed by a reverse order instruction, and followed by a sketch instruction). We examined the new information provided after each stage of the interview and also compared the information provided in the initial recall with the information provided after the entire interview. A total of 47 truth tellers and 47 lie tellers went on a mission. Truth tellers were asked to report their mission truthfully, whereas lie tellers were requested to lie about several aspects of the mission. We measured the total units of information (total details) provided in the interview and the number of complications reported. The results indicate that the pre-registered hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) was supported for complications. Truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers in each stage of the interview and the difference was more pronounced after the entire interview than after the free recall. As a conclusion, CCA was an effective lie detection method when complications were taken into account.

Sketching while narrating as a tool to detect deceit

Abstract: In none of the deception studies that used drawings to date, was the effect of sketching on both speech content and drawing content examined, making it unclear what the full potential is of the use of drawings as a lie detection tool. A total of 122 truth tellers and liars took part in the study who did or did not sketch while narrating their allegedly experienced event. We formulated hypotheses about the total amount of information and number of complications reported and about various features of the drawings. Participants in the Sketch-present condition provided more information than participants in the Sketch-absent condition, and truth tellers reported more details than liars, but only in the Sketch-present condition. In contrast to previous research, no Veracity differences occurred regarding the content of the drawings, perhaps because sketching was introduced as a tool that facilitated verbal recall and not as a stand-alone tool.

The efficacy of using countermeasures in a model statement interview

Abstract: In a countermeasures experiment, we examined to what extent liars who learn about the Model Statement tool and about the proportion of complications (complications/complications + common knowledge details + self-handicapping strategies) can successfully adjust their responses so that they sound like truth tellers. Truth tellers discussed a trip they had made; liars fabricated a story. Participants were of Lebanese, Mexican, and South-Korean origin. Prior to the interview they did or did not receive information about (i) the working of the Model statement and (ii) three types of verbal detail: complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies. We found no evidence that liars sounded like truth tellers after being informed about the Model Statement and/or types of detail we examined. Actually, veracity differences were similar across experimental conditions, with truth tellers reporting more detail and more complications and obtaining a higher proportion of complications score than liars.

The interaction of truthful and deceptive information

Abstract: Research consistently shows that truthful accounts are richer in detail than deceptive accounts. It is unknown, however, how interviewees strategically regulate the information they provide when th...

“Tell me more about this…”: An examination of the efficacy of follow‐up open questions following an initial account

Abstract: In information gathering interviews, follow-up questions are asked to clarify and extend initial witness accounts. Across two experiments, we examined the efficacy of open-ended questions following an account about a multi-perpetrator event. In Experiment 1, 50 mock witnesses used the timeline technique or a free recall format to provide an initial account. Although follow-up questions elicited new information (18–22% of the total output) across conditions, the response accuracy (60%) was significantly lower than that of the initial account (83%). In Experiment 2 (N = 60), half of the participants received pre-questioning instructions to monitor accuracy when responding to follow-up questions. New information was reported (21–22% of the total output) across conditions, but despite using pre-questioning instructions, response accuracy (75%) was again lower than the spontaneously reported information (87.5%). Follow-up open-ended questions prompt additional reporting; however, practitioners should be cautious to corroborate the accuracy of new reported details.

Complications travel: A cross‐cultural comparison of the proportion of complications as a verbal cue to deceit

Abstract: Verbal lie detection tools are almost exclusively examined in Western Europe and North America, but practitioners worldwide show interest in such tools. Since cultural differences in the efficacy of such tools may occur, it is important to examine their efficacy in different cultures. In this article, we focus on proportion of complications, which in previous research was more diagnostic than ‘total details’ in two British samples and in three samples that each included Hispanic, Russian, and South Korean participants. In the present article, we merged the three non-British samples and analysed the data by presenting them for each cultural group separately. Truth tellers disclosed the details of a trip away they had made, whereas liars fabricated such details. Proportion of complications discriminated truth tellers from liars in all three groups and was consistently a better indicator of veracity than total details. Implications of the findings are discussed. Keywords: verbal cues to deception, within-subjects comparisons, liars’ strategies, complications, proportion of complications, total details Complications travel 3 Complications Travel: A cross-cultural comparison of the proportion of complications as a verbal cue to deceit Verbal lie detection tools are almost exclusively examined in Western Europe and North America, but practitioners frequently ask whether such tools are effective across cultures (Vrij, Leal, & Fisher, 2018). Since cultural differences may influence the efficacy of such tools, it is needed to examine their efficacy in different cultures before their widespread use can be recommended. In this article, we examined one verbal lie detection approach, which focuses on the proportion of complications, amongst Hispanic, Russian and South Korean participants. Amongst the verbal cues to deception that researchers have examined during the last 30 years, total details is one of the strongest indicators. It emerged as the strongest cue amongst the 19 cues investigated in a meta-analysis of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) research, a frequently used verbal veracity assessment tool (Amado, Arce, Fariña, & Vilarino, 2016). The typical finding is that truth tellers report more details than liars (Amado et al., 2016; DePaulo et al., 2003; Vrij, 2008). Two reasons are typically given for this veracity effect. First, liars may be unable to fabricate enough details that also sound plausible, a conclusion derived from the CBCA literature (Köhnken, 2004). Second, liars may be unwilling to provide many details out of fear that some of them will give leads to investigators that will reveal that they are lying (Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2014). Recently, Vrij and colleagues suggested that total details does not make optimum use of the different strategies truth tellers and liars typically employ (Vrij et al., 2017, 2018a, b, 2019). They argued that both truth tellers and liars will report details to appear convincing, but that the type of detail they report will differ. They proposed to distinguish between one type of detail that truth tellers are more likely to Complications travel 4 report (complications) and two types of detail that liars are more likely to report (common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies) and to use the proportion of cues to truthfulness (i.e. the proportion of complications) as a measure. They argued that since the proportion of complications takes the different strategies from truth tellers and liars better into account than total details, it should differentiate truth tellers from liars better than the total details variable. A complication is an occurrence that makes a situation more difficult to report than necessary (“We did not see him, we were waiting at a different entrance”) (Vrij et al., 2018b). Complications have been examined before and is one of the 19 criteria that constitutes the CBCA-list. According to a recent CBCA meta-analysis, complications are more likely to occur in truthful statements than in deceptive statements (Amado et al., 2016; Vrij, 2008; Vrij et al., 2017b). Truth tellers are thought to report more complications than liars because liars prefer to keep their stories simple (Hartwig, Granhag, & Strömwall, 2007), whereas reporting complications makes a story more complex. Common knowledge details refer to strongly invoked stereotypical information about events (“We visited the zoo and saw lots of animals”) (Vrij et al., 2018b). Liars are more likely to include common knowledge details in their statements than truth tellers (Sporer, 2016; Volbert & Steller, 2014), because when describing a made-up activity they lack the personal experiences truth tellers can report. Self-handicapping strategies refer to justifications as to why someone is not able to provide information (Vrij et al., 2018b). Such justifications can be explicit (“I can’t remember his name, I am bad at remembering names”) or implicit (“I slept in the train”). Liars are more likely to include self-handicapping strategies in their statements than truth tellers. For liars to keep their stories simple, not providing too Complications travel 5 many details is an attractive strategy. However, they run the risk not to be believed if they provide not enough detail. A solution is to offer a justification for not being able to report details. In all five studies to date in which complications, common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies and total details have been examined (Leal, Vrij, Deeb, & Kamermans, 2019; Vrij et al., 2017, 2018a, b, 2019)1, it was found that truth tellers reported more complications and liars more self-handicapping strategies (liars did not always report more common knowledge details). In addition, in all five studies the proportion of complications was higher amongst truth tellers than liars. Also, the main hypothesis that the proportion of complications is more diagnostic in discriminating truth tellers from liars than total number of details was supported in all five studies. In Leal et al. (2019) and Vrij et al. (2018b) the participants were British and the results have been fully reported. In each of the other three studies (Vrij, 2017, 2018a, 2019) participants were from Russian, South-Korean and Hispanic origin. Differences between these three nationalities (Russians, Koreans and Hispanics) were not discussed as nationality was always introduced as a covariate. Since all these three studies employed a similar procedure, it would be possible to merge these data sets of Vrij et al. (2017, 2018a, 2019). This has been done in the current article. The innovative aspect of the current article is the Group analyses in which we examined the verbal cues total details, complications, common knowledge details, selfhandicapping strategies and proportion of complications in each of the three nationalities. We thus addressed practitioners’ request to focus on cross-cultural findings. In the three studies that formed the basis of this article, participants were university students and interviewed by local interviewers in their own language at Complications travel 6 their local university. In theory we could make two comparisons: (i) Comparing the three groups for speech differences or (ii) comparing the difference between truth tellers and liars in each group. The first comparison is in the present sample somewhat problematic because the groups differed on various aspects, including being interviewed by different interviewers. Neither is this a comparison practitioners are particularly interested in. For them the crucial question is the cultural (in)stability of diagnostic cues to deceit, which is examined in the second comparison. The few studies that examined cross-cultural differences in verbal cues to deception (Leal et al., 2018; Taylor, Larner, Conchie, & Menacere, 2017; Taylor, Larner, Conchie, & van der Zee, 2017) found differences in the diagnostic value of these cues across cultures. This makes it worthwhile to examine differences in the diagnostic value of the verbal veracity cues total details, complications, common knowledge details, selfhandicapping strategies and the proportion of complications across cultures. We explored whether the main hypothesis that the proportion of complications is more diagnostic in discriminating truth tellers from liars than total number of details found support in all three Groups. Method Participants A total of 608 University students (135 males, 466 females and seven unknown) took part in the three studies. Their age ranged from 18-42 years with an average age of M = 21.82 years (SD = 3.41). The experiment took place in three different universities in Russia, South Korea and Texas, USA, and the participants were of Russian (n = 239), Korean (n = 240), and Hispanic (n = 129) origin. Conducting a posthoc power analysis using G*Power software revealed that for a one-tailed test, a moderate effect size of r = 0.30 (the equivalent of d = 0.586, which is the average of d-scores for the dependent variables when the total sample is Complications travel 7 considered, see Table 1), an alpha error rate of 0.05, and a total sample size of 608, the power achieved is perfect (1.00). Also, for a sample of 129 (Hispanics group size), the power is 0.97. Procedure The three studies on which this data set was based all used the same procedure. We will provide here a synopsis of the procedure and refer to the original articles by Vrij and colleagues for the full details (Vrij et al., 2017, 2018a, 2019). Participants were interviewed about an alleged trip to a city they made during the last twelve months. Truth tellers really had made the trip they discussed, whereas liars did not. In fact, they had never visited the city they talked about before. Both truth tellers and liars were given time to prepare themselves for the interview for which a computer with internet access was available. In a pre-interview questionnaire, participants ra

Embedding lies into truthful stories does not affect their quality

Abstract: When given the opportunity, liars will embed their lies into otherwise truthful statements. In what way this embedding affects the quality of lies, however, remains largely unknown. This study investigated whether lies that are embedded into truthful stories are richer in detail and contain higher quality details compared to lies that are part of entirely fabricated statements. Participants (N = 111) were asked to provide a statement that was either entirely truthful, entirely fabricated, or had the fabricated element of interest embedded into an otherwise truthful story. Results indicated that lies embedded in a fabricated statement are not qualitatively different from lies embedded in an otherwise truthful statement. Supporting Bayes factors provided moderate to strong evidence for this conclusion. Accordingly, verbal credibility assessment tools based on the verbal content measured in this study may be robust against the embedding of lies.

Are there non-verbal signals of guilt?

Abstract: Guilt is a complex emotion with a potentially important social function of stimulating cooperative behaviours towards and from others, but whether the feeling of guilt is associated with a recognisable pattern of nonverbal behaviour is unknown. We examined the production and perception of guilt in two different studies, with a total of 238 participants with various places of origin. Guilt was induced experimentally, eliciting patterns of movement that were associated with both the participants’ self-reported feelings of guilt and judges’ impressions of their guilt. Guilt was most closely associated with frowning and neck touching. While there were differences between self-reported guilt and perception of guilt the findings suggest that there are consistent patterns that could be considered a non-verbal signal of guilt in humans.

Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior.

Abstract: In this article, we attempt to unravel the misconception about deception and nervous behavior. First we will cite research demonstrating that observers believe lie tellers display more nervous behaviors than truth tellers; that observers pay attention to nervous behaviors when they attempt to detect deception; and that lie tellers actually feel more nervous than truth tellers. This is all in alignment with a lie detection approach based on spotting nervous behaviors. We then will argue that the next, vital, step is missing: Research has found that lie tellers generally do not display more than truth tellers the nervous behaviors laypersons and professionals appear to focus on. If observers pay attention to nervous behaviors but lie tellers do not come across as being nervous, lie detection performance is expected to be poor. Research has supported this claim. We finally discuss ideas for research into lie detection based on non-verbal behaviors.

Proportion of complications in interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

Abstract: Recently, researchers have started searching for combinations of verbal cues to deceit and verbal cues to truth. The proportion of complications (complications divided by complications plus common knowledge details plus self-handicapping strategies) is an example of such a combination, as it includes one verbal cue of truth (complications) and two verbal cues of deceit (common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies). This study examines whether or not complications, common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies and the proportion of complications can differentiate truth-tellers from liars in interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews. Both interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews take place frequently, and it is important to know whether or not any given lie detection tool works in both interview settings. For this purpose, three data sets were obtained and the data were aggregated. All four variables were found to differentiate truth-tellers from liars to a similar extent in both interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

‘Please tell me all you remember’: a comparison between British and Arab interviewees’ free narrative performance and its implications for lie detection

Abstract: We examined how much information British and Arab truth tellers and lie tellers volunteer in an initial free narrative. Based on cultural differences in communication styles we predicted that Briti...

Examining witness interviewing environments

Abstract: The literature on information elicitation in psycholegal settings has predominantly focused on the investigator–interviewee dynamic, with little attention to the environment in which the interview takes place. The present study compared the impact of two interview locations on the disclosure of crime‐related information and perceptions of rapport building. Participants experienced a virtual reality mock crime, and 1 week later were interviewed at either their homes, or a formal room akin to a real‐world police interview room. Participants in the home setting reported feeling more at ease and in control compared to participants interviewed in the formal room. However, we found no differences between conditions on the quantity and quality of information disclosure and participants' perceptions of rapport building. Based on our findings, we found no advantages or disadvantages for conducting witness interviews at their homes. However, these results underscore the practicality of interviewing witnesses outside the police interview room if deemed as more convenient

Detainee and layperson's expectations and preferences regarding police interview rooms.

Abstract: Emerging research on how suspects perceive the physical environment during investigative interviews yields contrasting findings. While previous studies have suggested that a room made to be physically comfortable may be optimal for interviewing suspects, another study found it can instead lead to higher suspicion of the investigator’s intentions. The current study examined current detainees’ and general population participants’ beliefs about a room that resembled a “typical” interview room, and one decorated to be warm, inviting, and comfortable. Participants also provided descriptive information about their perceptions of police interview environments (e.g., preferences, expectations). We hypothesized that the decorated room would elicit higher ratings of suspicion and wariness compared to the “typical” room. Our findings showed that, overall, participants expected to be interviewed in the “typical” room but preferred the decorated one. Contrary to our expectations, they rated the “typical” room higher on feelings of suspicion than the decorated room. The decorated room also corresponded with what participants reported to be an environment that promotes disclosure. These results bode well for conducting investigative interviews in comfortable environments.

The social function of the feeling and expression of guilt

Abstract: Humans are uniquely cooperative and form crucial short- and long-term social bonds between individuals that ultimately shape human societies. The need for such intense cooperation may have provided a particularly powerful selection pressure on the emotional and communicative behaviours regulating cooperative processes, such as guilt. Guilt is a social, other-oriented moral emotion that promotes relationship repair and pro-sociality. For example, people can be more lenient towards wrongdoers who display guilt than towards those who do not. Here, we examined the social consequences of guilt in a novel experimental setting with pairs of friends differing in relationship quality. Pairs of participants took part in a cooperative game with a mutual goal. We then induced guilt in one of the participants and informed the other participant of their partner's wrongdoing. We examined the outcome using a dictator game to see how they split a joint reward. We found that guilty people were motivated to repair wrongdoing regardless of friendship. Observing guilt in others led to a punishment effect and a victim of wrongdoing punished close friends who appeared guilty more so than acquaintances. We suggest, therefore, that guilt has a stronger function between close friends as the costs of relationship breakdown are greater. Relationship context, therefore, is crucial to the functional relevance of moral emotions.

Articulating guilt? The influence of guilt presumption on interviewer and interviewee behaviour

Abstract: Research has repeatedly shown that accusatory questions posed during an investigative interview are indicative of biased beliefs about suspect guilt. Linguistic research has shown that the verbs used in utterances can be indicative of biased beliefs about another person. In the present study we examined question type and the verbs used in question formulation using non-police participants to explore the influence of guilt presumption on interview questions. In Study1 we used the Linguistic Category Model (LCM; Semin and Fiedler European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 1–30, 1991) and in Study 2, the Question-Answer Paradigm (QAP; Semin et al. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 834–841, 1995) to analyse verb abstraction and positive/ negative valence of the formulated interview questions. We also explored whether interviewers’ guilt presumptions changed over the course of the interview as well as their motivations for creating the questions they chose to ask (Study 2). We found that participants who presumed guilt were more likely to formulate accusatory questions and use a higher verb abstraction with negative valence (Study 1 and 2). Interviewers asked more questions to gather additional information overall; however, the number of questions was negligible for trying to find support for alternative scenarios or to falsify existing guilt beliefs (Study 2). Interviewers who presumed guilt were also less likely to change their views during the interview and were more likely to report using behavioural cues to solidify their guilt presumptions (Study 2). The overall findings are in line with previous research in both guilt presumptive interviewing and linguistically biased language; however, we expanded on previous research by allowing participants to come to their own conclusions regarding guilt, as well as formulating their own questions for the suspect. Finally, we conclude that there are extensive limitations for using the LCM in applied interview settings and these are discussed.

Fading lies: applying the verifiability approach after a period of delay

Abstract: We tested the utility of applying the Verifiability Approach (VA) to witness statements after a period of delay. The delay factor is important to consider because interviewees are often not intervi...

An examination of the Self‐Administered Interview (SAI) as a verbal veracity assessment tool

Abstract: Correspondence Charlotte A. Hudson, Department of Psychology, King Henry Building, King Henry I Street, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO1 2DY, UK. Email: charlotte.hudson@port.ac.uk Summary The self-administered interview (SAI) is a written eyewitness recall tool that elicits more information from cooperative witnesses than written free recall (WFR) formats. To date, SAI research has examined the accounts of cooperative people providing honest reports. In the current experiment, truthful and fabricating participants (N = 128) either completed a WFR or a SAI after witnessing a crime (initial account). After a 1-week delay, participants were interviewed verbally (subsequent interview). Truth tellers reported significantly more detail than liars in both the initial account and subsequent interview, and participants who completed the SAI reported more detail than those completing the WFR. Truth tellers repeated and omitted more information in the subsequent interview than liars; however, there was no significant difference in the number of reminiscent details reported. Although the SAI is effective in eliciting information as an initial eyewitness reporting tool, no benefits for the detection of deception were demonstrated.

When and how are lies told? And the role of culture and intentions in intelligence‐gathering interviews

Abstract: Purpose: Lie‐tellers tend to tell embedded lies within interviews. In the context of intelligence‐gathering interviews, human sources may disclose information about multiple events, some of which may be false. In two studies, we examined when lie‐tellers from low‐ and high‐context cultures start reporting false events in interviews and to what extent they provide a similar amount of detail for the false and truthful events. Study 1 focused on lie‐tellers' intentions, and Study 2 focused on their actual responses. Methods: Participants were asked to think of one false event and three truthful events. Study 1 (N = 100) was an online study in which participants responded to a questionnaire about where they would position the false event when interviewed and they rated the amount of detail they would provide for the events. Study 2 (N = 126) was an experimental study that involved interviewing participants about the events. Results: Although there was no clear preference for lie position, participants seemed to report the false event at the end rather than at the beginning of the interview. Also, participants provided a similar amount of detail across events. Results on intentions (Study 1) partially overlapped with results on actual responses (Study 2). No differences emerged between low‐ and high‐context cultures. Conclusions: This research is a first step towards understanding verbal cues that assist investigative practitioners in saving their cognitive and time resources when detecting deception regardless of interviewees' cultural background. More research on similar cues is encouraged.

Beliefs about suspect alibis: A survey of lay people in the United Kingdom, Israel, and Sweden

Abstract: During police interviews, innocent suspects may provide unconvincing alibis due to impaired memory processes or guilt-presumptive behaviour on behalf of the interviewer. Consequently, innocent susp...

The impact of evidence type on police investigators’ perceptions of suspect culpability and evidence reliability

Abstract: . In a repeated-measures experimental study, we examined how evidence type influences police investigators’ beliefs about (a) suspect’s culpability and (b) reliability of incriminating evid...

Utility and Effectiveness of the Context Manipulation Techniques: Police Investigators’ Perspectives

Abstract: The foremost goal of conducting an investigative interview is to obtain as much accurate information as possible. To achieve this, investigators employ a variety of interviewing techniques. Kelly et al. (Psychol Public Policy Law 19:165–178, 2013) proposed a taxonomy interviewing techniques, grouping them into six domains (i.e., Rapport and Relationship Building, Context Manipulation, Emotion Provocation, Collaboration, Confrontation/Competition, and Presentation of Evidence). In this study, we focused on assessing the Context Manipulation domain (e.g., considering seating arrangements, time of day, clothing). Specifically, we sought to examine police investigators’ use and beliefs about the effectiveness of context manipulation techniques. A sample of 81 police investigators completed the survey. Our findings provide evidence that investigators believe the interview setting to have importance and are already employing some context manipulation techniques in their practice. Techniques mentioned most often were related to seating arrangement, investigators’ clothing, and item availability for suspects (e.g., water, coffee). This survey also provides evidence that investigators are receptive to using context manipulation techniques in their practice, despite how little they are currently taught during trainings. Understanding what context manipulation techniques investigators use and believe to be useful in their interviewing practice may have implications for future training, as well as for the (re)design of interview rooms.