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

Vernham, Zarah; Vrij, Aldert; Leal, Sharon

doi:10.1111/lcrp.12136

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current project is part of a larger project. In the other part of the project, a model statement manipulation in a collective interview setting was examined (Vernham, Vrij, & Leal, ). The 49 British pairs in this study were part of a 67 pairs of control group of the other study, which also included 18 pairs of non‐British participants (not the Chinese and Arab participants of the current sample).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐cultural verbal deception

Leal

Vrij

Vernham

et al. 2018

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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). Method.Interviewees were interviewed in pairs and 153 pairs took part. Truthful pairs discussed an actual visit to a nearby restaurant, whereas deceptive pairs pretended to have visited a nearby restaurant. Seventeen verbal cues were examined.Results. Cultural cues (differences between cultures) were more prominent than cues to deceit (differences between truth tellers and liars). In particular, the British interviewees differed from their Chinese and Arab counterparts and the differences reflected low-and high-context culture communication styles.Conclusion. Cultural cues could quickly lead to cross-cultural verbal communication errors: the incorrect interpretation of a cultural difference as a cue to deceit. 192was not a culturally specific cue to deceit. We will keep this distinction between crosscultural cues, cues to deceit, and culturally specific cues to deceit in this article examining speech content.Cross-cultural research examining verbal cues to deception is sparse, but the work of Taylor and colleagues is a noteworthy exception (Taylor, Larner, Conchie, & Menacere, 2017;Taylor, Larner, Conchie, & van der Zee, 2014). They examined verbal cues to deception amongst several cultural groups: Arab, Pakistani, North African, South Asian, White British, and White European. It was found that a decrease in first person pronouns as a sign of deceit was moderated by culture. That is, White British participants reduced their first person pronouns to the greatest extent and North African participants to the least extent, with White European and South Asian participants in between those two groups (Taylor et al., 2017). In Taylor et al. (2014), several culturally specific cues to deceit emerged. For example, the use of negations (e.g., denials) was indicative of deception in Arab and Pakistani populations but not in White British and North African populations; and the use of spatial information was indicative of deception in North African and Pakistani populations but indicative of truth in Arab and White British populations.A different line of research, not examined in the current experiment, is cross-cultural lie detection: the ability of people to recognize deception across cultures. A general finding in thisalso sparseline of research is that judgement accuracy tends to decrease when judgements are made across cultures (Bond & Atoum, 2000;Bond, Omar, Mahmoud, & Bonser, 1990). See Taylor et al. (2014) for a summary of this research. Cross-cultural cuesA communication style is the way people communicate with others (Liu, 2016). Of the theoreti...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐cultural verbal deception

Leal

Vrij

Vernham

et al. 2018

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interaction effects for the new total details in the second recall and reverse order recalls were not significant (both F's < .40, both p's > .532), which replicates Leal et al (2018). However, for the reason described above, we -and also Leal et al (2018a)-examined the Veracity effects for the two Model Statement conditions separately, see Table 3.…”

Section: About Herementioning

confidence: 58%

“…In that study, using British participants, it was found that a model statement elicited more peripheral details in liars than in truth tellers. Investigators are typically interested in whether tools that work in Western cultures also work in other cultures (Leal et al, ; Vernham, Vrij, & Leal, ). To answer this question, cross‐cultural research is required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars amongst Arab interviewees: A partial replication of Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018)

Leal¹,

Vrij²,

Vernham³

et al. 2019

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leal, Vrij, Deeb and Jupe (2018) found -with British participants-that a Model Statement elicited (1) more information and (2) a cue to deceit: After exposure to a Model Statement liars reported significantly more peripheral information than truth tellers. We sought to replicate these findings with Arabs living in Israel. Truth tellers and liars reported a stand-out event that they had (truth tellers) or pretended to have (liars) experienced in the last two

show abstract

“…To date, there have been 17 published studies using a MS and two studies reported at conferences (Hirn et al, 2012; Körner & Urban, 2018). One study used pairs of participants, and although the MS appeared useful for facilitating lie‐detection, this has only been tested once (Vernham, Vrij, & Leal, 2018). As we are interested in individual participants, this study has not been included in the review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical analysis of the Model Statement literature: Should this tool be used in practice?

Porter

Taylor

Salvanelli³

2020

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigators need to elicit detailed statements from interviewees to find potential leads, whilst simultaneously judging if a statement is genuine or fabricated. Researchers have proposed that the Model Statement (MS) can both (a) increase information elicitation from interviewees and (b) amplify the verbal differences between liars and truth tellers, thereby enhancing lie‐detection accuracy. Based upon a critical analysis of the MS literature, we argue that this tool is not currently ready for practical usage, as its utility has not been fully established. We highlight a diverse range of existing MS scripts, and a greater diversity in the dependent measures examined in conjunction with this tool. More robust replications of these procedures are needed. We also highlight why some measures of verbal content may not be suitable as outcome measures and suggest that new research could use the well‐established reality monitoring criteria to allow for standardisation across studies.

show abstract

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

Cited by 5 publications

References 41 publications

Cross‐cultural verbal deception

Cross‐cultural verbal deception

Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars amongst Arab interviewees: A partial replication of Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018)

A critical analysis of the Model Statement literature: Should this tool be used in practice?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About