Showing papers by "Aldert Vrij published in 2022"

How researchers can make verbal lie detection more attractive for practitioners

Abstract: Over the last 30 years deception researchers have changed their attention from observing nonverbal behaviour to analysing speech content. However, many practitioners we speak to are reluctant to make the change from nonverbal to verbal lie detection. In this article we present what practitioners believe is problematic about verbal lie detection: the interview style typically used is not suited for verbal lie detection; the most diagnostic verbal cue to deceit (total details) is not suited for lie detection purposes; practitioners are looking for signs of deception but verbal deception researchers are mainly examining cues that indicate truthfulness; cut-off points (decision rules to decide when someone is lying) do not exist; different verbal indicators are required for different types of lie; and verbal veracity indicators may be culturally defined. We discuss how researchers could address these problems.

Verbal Lie Detection: Its Past, Present and Future

Abstract: This article provides an overview of verbal lie detection research. This type of research began in the 1970s with examining the relationship between deception and specific words. We briefly review this initial research. In the late 1980s, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) emerged, a veracity assessment tool containing a list of verbal criteria. This was followed by Reality Monitoring (RM) and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), two other veracity assessment tools that contain lists of verbal criteria. We discuss their contents, theoretical rationales, and ability to identify truths and lies. We also discuss similarities and differences between CBCA, RM, and SCAN. In the mid 2000s, ‘Interviewing to deception’ emerged, with the goal of developing specific interview protocols aimed at enhancing or eliciting verbal veracity cues. We outline the four most widely researched interview protocols to date: the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), Verifiability Approach (VA), Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA), and Reality Interviewing (RI). We briefly discuss the working of these protocols, their theoretical rationales and empirical support, as well as the similarities and differences between them. We conclude this article with elaborating on how neuroscientists can inform and improve verbal lie detection.

Mapping Details to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit: The Effects of Map Richness1

Abstract: Background:Investigators often use maps in forensic interviews to verify a route that was taken by a suspect to obtain additional information, and to assess credibility.Method:We examined the effects of the level of map richness on the elicitation of information and cues to deceit. A total of 112 participants completed a mock secret mission and were asked to tell the truth (to a friendly agent) or to lie (to a hostile agent) about it in an interview. In phase 1 of the interview, all participants provided a verbal free recall of the mission. In phase 2, half of the participants were given a detailed map that included all street names and landmarks of the city where they completed the mission (zoomed in to 80%), and the other half were given a less detailed map that included the names of only major streets and landmarks (zoomed in to 60%). All participants were asked to verbally describe the mission and the route taken while sketching on the map.Results:Compared to lie tellers, truth tellers provided more location, action, temporal, and object details and complications in phase 1, and new person, location, action, and object details and complications in phase 2. Map richness did not have an effect on the amount of information elicited and had an equal effect on truth tellers and lie tellers.Conclusions:This initial experiment in this research area suggests that investigators do not have to worry about the exact level of map detailedness when introducing maps in interviews.

Interviewing to Detect Omission Lies

Abstract: Interviewees sometimes deliberately omit reporting some information. Such omission lies differ from other lies because all the information interviewees present may be entirely truthful. Truth tellers and lie tellers carried out a mission. Truth tellers reported the entire mission truthfully. Lie tellers were also entirely truthful but left out one element of the mission. In truth tellers' statements, only the parts that lie tellers were also asked to recall were analysed. Interviews were carried out via the Cognitive Credibility Assessment, Reality Interview, or standard interview protocol. Dependent variables were the details, complications and verifiable sources interviewees reported. A questionnaire measured three deception strategies: ‘Tell it all’, ‘keep it simple’ or ‘paying attention to demeanour’. Lie tellers reported fewer details, complications and verifiable sources than truth tellers and reporting these variables was negatively correlated with the ‘keep it simple’ and ‘demeanour’ strategies. The type of interview protocol did not affect the results.

Sketching Routes to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit

Abstract: Sketching while narrating involves describing an event while sketching on a blank paper (self-generated sketch) or on a printed map. We compared the effects of self-generated sketches and printed maps on information elicitation and lie detection. Participants (N = 211) carried out a mock mission and were instructed to tell the truth or to lie about it in an online interview. In the first phase of the interview, all participants provided a free recall. In the second phase, participants provided another free recall or verbally described the mission while sketching on a blank paper or on a printed map. Truth tellers provided richer accounts than lie tellers. Larger effect sizes emerged for the self-generated sketch condition than for the printed map and free recall conditions. This suggests that self-generated sketches are more effective lie detection tools when information on routes and locations is sought.

The Model Sketch for Enhancing Lie Detection and Eliciting Information

Abstract: 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.

Differences between Japanese and British participants in self-reported verbal strategies to appear convincing

Abstract: We compared the self-reported verbal strategies employed to appear convincing when lying and truth telling from 101 British (a low-context culture) and 149 Japanese (a high-context culture) participants. They completed a web-based survey and rated the degree to which they would use 16 verbal strategies when telling the truth and lying. British participants were more concerned with providing innocent reasons and avoiding/denying incriminating evidence when lying than when truth telling (no veracity effect emerged for Japanese participants). Japanese participants were less concerned with avoiding hesitations and lack of consistency when lying than when truth telling (no veracity effect emerged for British participants). The findings suggest that it is important to examine whether interview protocols developed to determine veracity in low-context cultures, such as the Strategic Use of Evidence and Cognitive Credibility Assessment, are equally effective in high-context cultures.

Exploring the relationship between personality, morality and lying: A study based on the person-centred approach

Abstract: Abstract Past research explored the relationship between personality, moral disengagement, and deception and found a general trend showing that the lower people score on the big five personality factors, but the higher they score on moral disengagement and Machiavellianism, the higher their lying tendency. However, a limitation of past research is that it has usually adopted a variable-centred approach, whereas a person-centred approach might describe people in more detail and provide further insight into the relationship between personality and morality. In the present study, we collected data from 316 participants and asked them to fill an on-line questionnaire which included measures on personality, moral disengagement, and lying tendency (perceived lying ability, frequency, negativity and contextuality). The latter was measured via the newly developed Structure of Deception (SoD) scale (Makowski et al., Current Psychology , 2021). We had to aims. First, to validate an Italian version of the SoD, which showed a good factor structure, gender measurement invariance, and good construct and criterion validity. Second, to explore the association between personal characteristics and lying tendency. Personality and morality scores were combined to obtain subpopulations of participants by a mean of cluster analysis. We obtained four clusters, one of which was marked by high Machiavellianism and moral disengagement but low scores on the personality factors, and one of which showed the opposite trend. The results also showed that cluster membership, and hence personal characteristics, was associated with lying tendency. The person-centred approach can be applied in research on lying. Limitations of the study and future suggestions are also discussed.

Detecting deception using comparable truth baselines

Abstract: ABSTRACT Baselining – comparing the statements of interest to a known truthful statement by the same individual – has been suggested to improve lie detection accuracy. A potential downside of baselining is that it might influence the characteristics of a subsequent statement, as was shown in previous studies. In our first experiment we examined this claim but found no evidence that a truthful baseline influenced the characteristics of a subsequent statement. Next, we investigated whether using a truthful baseline statement as a within-subject comparison would improve lie detection performance by investigating verbal cues (Experiment 1) and intuitive judgements of human judges (Experiment 2). Our exploratory analyses showed that truth tellers included more auditory and temporal details in their target statement than in their baseline than liars. Observers did not identify this verbal pattern. Exposure to a truthful baseline statement resulted in a lower truth accuracy but no difference in lie accuracy.

Actions speak louder than words: The Devil’s Advocate questioning protocol in opinions about protester actions

Abstract: The Devil’s Advocate protocol has been developed to assist making veracity assessments when someone discusses their opinion (Leal et al., 2010). The present experiment focused on protester actions rather than controversial issues (Leal et al., 2010) and also included an adapted version of the Verifiability Approach. Participants told the truth or lied about protester actions and the participants’ answers to the eliciting opinion and Devil’s Advocate questions were compared. The Devil’s Advocate approach predicts the difference in answers (residue scores) to be more pronounced in truth tellers than in lie tellers in terms of quantity of the answers (number of words, details and arguments) and quality of the answers (plausibility, immediacy and clarity). The hypothesis was supported but only in terms of quality: Truth tellers’ answers sounded more plausible and immediate and somewhat clearer than lie tellers’ answers. Truth tellers also reported more digital verifiable sources than lie tellers. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Effect of Using Countermeasures in Interpreter-Absent and Interpreter-Present Interviews

Abstract: Background: In two experiments we examined whether lie tellers, after reading articles about the Model Statement interview tool and/or about the verbal cues complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies, can successfully use countermeasures by adjusting their statements so that they sound like truth tellers. We also examined whether the presence of an interpreter affect these results. Method: In both experiments, truth tellers discussed a trip they had made; lie tellers fabricated a story. Participants were of Lebanese, Mexican and South-Korean origin. Prior to the interview participants in Experiment 1 did or did not receive information about (i) the working of the Model Statement tool and (ii) three types of verbal detail: complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies. In Experiment 2 the Model Statement Pre- Information factor was replaced by the presence/absence of an interpreter. Results/Conclusions: We found no evidence that lie tellers adjusted their responses after being informed about the Model Statement and / or the types of detail we examined.