Cross‐cultural verbal deception

Abstract

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...

Cross‐cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports

“…This speculation fits with assertions that individuals from collectivistic cultures report less specific and more generic details than individuals from individualistic cultures (Millar, Serbun, Vadalia, & Gutchess, ; Wang & Ross, ). Similar results have been observed in research on deception detection, showing interviewees in individualistic cultures typically report more explicit details than interviewees from collectivistic cultures (Leal et al, ). Leal et al () argued that interviewees from collectivistic cultures tend to leave many things unsaid, allowing the context to communicate what is implied, whereas in individualistic cultures, the communication style tends to be more explicit.…”

“…Similar results have been observed in research on deception detection, showing interviewees in individualistic cultures typically report more explicit details than interviewees from collectivistic cultures (Leal et al, ). Leal et al () argued that interviewees from collectivistic cultures tend to leave many things unsaid, allowing the context to communicate what is implied, whereas in individualistic cultures, the communication style tends to be more explicit. Therefore, during investigative interviews, it may be necessary to prompt and encourage eyewitnesses from collectivistic cultures to elaborate further on the initial information they provide.…”

Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: The ghostwriter method

“…That means that we did not replicate Leal, Vrij, Vernham, et al . 's () findings that truth tellers reported more verifiable sources than liars. In all other research concerning the VA to date, verifiable details rather than verifiable sources were examined and truth tellers typically reported more verifiable details than liars (Vrij & Nahari, ).…”

“…Leal, Vrij, Vernham, et al . () found that truth tellers reported more verifiable sources than liars.…”

“…Instead of counting the number of verifiable details, Leal, Vrij, Vernham, et al . () counted the number of verifiable sources (e.g., ‘my friend Zvi’ in the example above). They argued that investigators probably find it easier in real time to count the number of verifiable sources than the number of verifiable details.…”