The devil is in the detail: deception and consistency over repeated interviews

ABSTRACT

Research indicates that truthful statements typically contain more details than fabricated statements, and that truth tellers are no more consistent than liars over multiple interviews. In this experiment, we examine the impact of (i) multiple interviewers and (ii) reverse order recall on liars’ and truth tellers’ consistency and amount of reported detail over repeated recall attempts. Participants either took part in a mock crime (lying condition) or an innocent event (truth telling condition) which they were subsequently interviewed about in two separate interview phases. Truth tellers provided more details overall, and more reminiscent details than liars. There were no differences between veracity groups for the number of omissions made or repetitions reported. Despite the popular belief that inconsistency is a cue to deception, we found little support for the notion that consistency (or lack of consistency) offers a diagnostic cue to deception. We found little evidence that switching interviewer or recalling in reverse order induced inconsistencies in liars. In fact, due to the number of reminiscent details in truth tellers’ accounts, our findings suggest that accounts provided by liars tend to be slightly more consistent than those provided by truth tellers. Materials for this paper can be found at osf.io/hgvmk/.     

You cannot hide your telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance telephone calls

Deception research regarding insurance claims is rare but relevant given the financial loss in terms of fraud. In Study 1, a field study in a large multinational insurance fraud detection company, truth telling mock claimants (N = 19) and lying mock claimants (N = 21) were interviewed by insurance company telephone operators. These operators classified correctly only 50% of these truthful and lying claimants, but their task was particularly challenging: Claimants said little, and truthful and deceptive statements did not differ in quality (measured with Criteria‐Based Content Analysis [CBCA]) or plausibility. In Study 2, a laboratory experiment, participants in the experimental condition (N = 43) were exposed to an audiotaped truthful and detailed account of an event that was unrelated to insurance claims (a day at the motor races). The number of words, quality of the statement (measured with CBCA), and plausibility of the participants' accounts were compared with participants who were not given a model statement (N = 40). The participants who had listened to the model statement provided longer statements than control participants, truth tellers obtained higher CBCA scores than liars, and only in the model statement condition did truth tellers sound more plausible than liars. Providing participants with a model statement is thus an innovative and successful tool to elicit cues to deception. Providing such a model has the potential to enhance performance in insurance call interviews, and, as we argue, in many other interview settings.     

Shift patterns and hardiness: Police use of lethal force during simulated incidents

In the present experiment, utilizing the Film Fire' shooting simulation system, the effects of shift patterns and hardiness on police officers' judgments (decisions to (i) shoot at a suspect and (ii) taking cover during the confrontation) were examined. Sixty-one Authorised Firearms Officers were briefed on two “incidents” they would be asked to attend. The experiment took place at three different times, each time one hour before completion of the shift: at 1 p.m. (early day shift), 9 p.m. (late day shift), or 5 a.m. (night shift). In one incident the officer would be justified in shooting the suspect, whereas in the other incident it would be difficult for the officer to justify having shot the suspect. Because in both incidents the suspects were threatening the police officer, taking cover during both incidents would be desirable. Results revealed that most erroneous decisions occurred during the early shift, and that officers low in hardiness made more incorrect judgments than officers high in hardiness. Implications of the findings are discussed. Authors' Note: This study has been sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), studentship award given to the first author.     

Using sketch drawing to induce inconsistency in liars

Purpose. Consistency as a cue to detecting deception was tested in two experiments using sketch drawing and verbal reports in repeated interviews. Liars were expected to be less consistent than truth‐tellers. Methods. In Expt 1, 80 undergraduate students reported truthfully or deceptively about an alleged lunch date – they sketched the layout of the restaurant and then answered spatial questions about objects in the restaurant. Ratings were given for the consistency between sketches and verbal reports. In Expt 2, 34 undergraduate students reported truthfully or deceptively about completing a series of unrelated tasks – they answered spatial questions about objects in a room and then sketched the layout of the room. Proportions were calculated for the consistency between verbal reports and sketches. Results. Expt 1. Liars were rated as less consistent than truth‐tellers. Up to 80% of truth‐tellers and 70% of liars could be correctly classified. Expt 2. Liars were less consistent than truth‐tellers on consistency proportions. Up to 100% of truth‐tellers and 77% of liars could be correctly classified. Conclusions. Using sketches to induce inconsistency may be a reliable, resource efficient way to help investigators detect deception.     

The Direction of Deception: Neuro-Linguistic Programming as a Lie Detection Tool

There is a myth in popular psychology, often echoed in police literature, but as yet untested, that specific eye movements pertain to lying and truth telling. According to this line of thought, eye movements to the sender??s right indicate lying, as the sender??s eyes are drawn to the side of his/her brain where their fabrication is being created. We have put this hypothesis, derived from ??Neuro-Linguistic Programming?? to the test in two experiments. In Experiment 1, a total of 204 participants (all air passengers) were interviewed at an international airport about their forthcoming trip. All participants answered one question truthfully and one question deceptively. Some participants answered a third question truthfully, whereas others answered the same question deceptively. No conclusive evidence was found for a relationship between specific eye movements and deception. In Experiment 2, a total of 31 participants discussed their real occupation in one interview and a pretend occupation in another interview. Only three of the 31 participants revealed the eye movement pattern predicted by NLP. Reasons for the existence of the myth that liars display specific eye movements are discussed.     

‘Language of lies’: Urgent issues and prospects in verbal lie detection research

Since its introduction into the field of deception detection, the verbal channel has become a rapidly growing area of research. The basic assumption is that liars differ from truth tellers in their verbal behaviour, making it possible to classify them by inspecting their verbal accounts. However, as noted in conferences and in private communication between researchers, the field of verbal lie detection faces several challenges that merit focused attention. The first author therefore proposed a workshop with the mission of promoting solutions for urgent issues in the field. Nine researchers and three practitioners with experience in credibility assessments gathered for 3 days of discussion at Bar-Ilan University (Israel) in the first international verbal lie detection workshop. The primary session of the workshop took place the morning of the first day. In this session, each of the participants had up to 10 min to deliver a brief message, using just one slide. Researchers were asked to answer the question: ‘In your view, what is the most urgent, unsolved question/issue in verbal lie detection?’ Similarly, practitioners were asked: ‘As a practitioner, what question/issue do you wish verbal lie detection research would address?’ The issues raised served as the basis for the discussions that were held throughout the workshop. The current paper first presents the urgent, unsolved issues raised by the workshop group members in the main session, followed by a message to researchers in the field, designed to deliver the insights, decisions, and conclusions resulting from the discussions.