Deception among pairs: “Let's say we had lunch and hope they will swallow it!”

Deception research has neglected the fact that legal-workers often have to try to detect deceit on the basis of statements derived from pairs of suspects, each having been interrogated repeatedly. To remedy this shortcoming we conducted a study where each member of 10 truth-telling pairs and 10 lying pairs was interrogated twice about an alibi. One hundred and twenty undergraduate students were enrolled as lie-catchers. The main findings were that (a) overall deception detection accuracy was modest; (b) lie-catchers given access to a large number of statements did not outperform lie-catchers given access to a lesser number of statements; (c) when asked to justify their veracity assessments the most frequently reported cue was ‘consistency within pairs of suspects’; (d) all cues to deception were of low diagnostic value. Psycho-legal aspects of integrating sequential information in deception detection contexts are discussed.     

‘I'm a photographer,not a terrorist’: the use of photography to detect deception

When planning large-scale incidents or bombing campaigns, terrorists often conduct reconnaissance research to identify key targets. This may include taking photographs of potential target locations. Identifying an effective real-time method to distinguish between genuine photographers and those with more sinister intent may be beneficial for law enforcement and security agencies. Participants took photographs in a public place with a genuine intent (truth tellers) or sinister intent (liars). After taking these photographs, the participants were approached by an undercover interviewer (a mime artist) who asked them whether he could see the photographs. Later, the participants discussed their photographs in a formal interview. First, liars were less cooperative in their interaction with the undercover interviewer than truth tellers. Second, in the formal interview, liars mentioned some security features that appeared in the photographs more than truth tellers. The findings suggest that ‘using photographs to detect deception’ is a subject that could prove important to explore to benefit forensic and counter-terrorist practice.     

On Lie Detection “Wizards”

M. O'Sullivan and P. Ekman (2004) claim to have discovered 29 wizards of deception detection. The present commentary offers a statistical critique of the evidence for this claim. Analyses reveal that chance can explain results that the authors attribute to wizardry. Thus, by the usual statistical logic of psychological research, O'Sullivan and Ekman's claims about wizardry are gratuitous. Even so, there may be individuals whose wizardry remains to be uncovered. Thus, the commentary outlines forms of evidence that are (and are not) capable of diagnosing lie detection wizardry.     

“Intuitive” Lie Detection of Children’s Deception by Law Enforcement Officials and University Students

Adults ability to detect childrens deception was examined. Police officers, customs officers, and university students attempted to differentiate between children who lied or told the truth about a transgression. When children were simply questioned about the event (Experiment 1), the adult groups could not distinguish between lie-tellers and truth-tellers. However, participants were more accurate when the children had participated in moral reasoning tasks (Experiment 2) or promised to tell the truth (Experiment 3) before being interviewed. Additional exposure to the children did not affect accuracy (Experiment 4). Customs officers were more certain about their judgments than other groups, but no more accurate. Overall, adults have a limited ability to identify childrens deception, regardless of their experience with lie detection.     

Who should I look at? Eye contact during collective interviewing as a cue to deceit

Pairs of liars and pairs of truth tellers were interviewed and the amount of eye contact they made with the interviewer and each other was coded. Given that liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, we expected liars to monitor the interviewer to see whether they were being believed, and to try harder to convince the interviewer that they were telling the truth. It was hypothesised that this monitoring would manifest itself through more eye contact with the interviewer and less eye contact with each other than in the case of truth tellers. A total of 43 pairs of participants took part in the experiment. Truth tellers had lunch in a nearby restaurant. Liars took some money from a purse, and were asked to pretend that instead of taking the money, they had been to a nearby restaurant together for lunch. Pairs of liars looked less at each other and displayed more eye contact with the interviewer than pairs of truth tellers. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

The occurrence of eye blinks during a guilty knowledge test

Abstract

In the present experiment we examined whether eye blinks could discriminate between guilty and innocent examinees in a Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). Based on the assumption that guilty examinees would experience more cognitive load when responding to the key items than to the control items, we hypothesized that they would display fewer eye blinks during the key items than during the control items. For innocent examinees, responding to the key and control items should be equally demanding, and no differences in eye blinks between key and control items were expected. A total of 26 participants took part in an experiment where 13 guilty examinees committed a mock theft (of an exam paper) and the remaining 13 innocent examinees went on with their normal business. All participants underwent a GKT whereby their eye blinks were measured. Both guilty and innocent examinees displayed the pattern of eye blinks that we predicted. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

Detecting Deception Via Strategic Disclosure of Evidence

Deception detection research has largely neglected an important aspect of many investigations, namely that there often exists evidence against a suspect. This study examined the potentials of timing of evidence disclosure as a deception detection tool. The main prediction was that observers (N = 116) would obtain higher accuracy rates if the evidence against the suspects (N = 58) was presented in a late rather than early stage of the interrogation. This prediction was based on the idea that late evidence disclosure would trigger lack of consistencies between the liars’ stories and the evidence; this could be used as a cue to deception. The main prediction received support. Late disclosure observers obtained an overall accuracy of 61.7%, compared to 42.9% of Early disclosure observers. Deceptive statements were identified with high accuracy (67.6%) in Late disclosure, indicating that the technique in this form is beneficial mainly for pinpointing lies.     

Cues to Deception and Ability to Detect Lies as a Function of Police Interview Styles

In Experiment 1, we examined whether three interview styles used by the police, accusatory, information-gathering and behaviour analysis, reveal verbal cues to deceit, measured with the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and Reality Monitoring (RM) methods. A total of 120 mock suspects told the truth or lied about a staged event and were interviewed by a police officer employing one of these three interview styles. The results showed that accusatory interviews, which typically result in suspects making short denials, contained the fewest verbal cues to deceit. Moreover, RM distinguished between truth tellers and liars better than CBCA. Finally, manual RM coding resulted in more verbal cues to deception than automatic coding of the RM criteria utilising the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software programme.In Experiment 2, we examined the effects of the three police interview styles on the ability to detect deception. Sixty-eight police officers watched some of the videotaped interviews of Experiment 1 and made veracity and confidence judgements. Accuracy scores did not differ between the three interview styles; however, watching accusatory interviews resulted in more false accusations (accusing truth tellers of lying) than watching information-gathering interviews. Furthermore, only in accusatory interviews, judgements of mendacity were associated with higher confidence. We discuss the possible danger of conducting accusatory interviews.