Deception detection in repeated interviews: The effects of immediate type of questioning on the delayed accounts

Abstract

In this study, we examined how different types of interviewing (eliciting more complete vs. less complete accounts) used in an interview conducted shortly after an event affected truth tellers' and liars' responses when they were interviewed again after a two-week delay. Participants (n = 80) were shown a mock intelligence operation video and told either the truth or lied about its contents in two interviews, immediately after watching the video, and after a two-week delay. In the immediate interview participants were instructed either to report everything they remembered, or asked spatial questions related to the event. In the delayed interview, all participants were asked to report everything. The differences between truth tellers and liars were slightly larger in the report everything than in the spatial questions condition. Results suggest that an immediate "report everything" instruction can aid to effectively discriminate between truthful and deceptive accounts.

Combining the model statement and the sketching while narrating interview techniques to elicit information and detect lies in multiple interviews

“…The veracity effects were also strong in Interviews 1 and 2. Thus, the differences between lie tellers and truth tellers seem to carry over in multiple interviews, a finding that aligns with previous research (Deeb et al, 2020; Izotovas et al, 2020). Although lie tellers try to be consistent across interviews (refer to Table A1; also see Granhag & Strömwall, 1999), whereas truth tellers show a natural memory decay with time (Fisher et al, 2013; Harvey, Vrij, Leal, Hope, & Mann, 2017), it is still possible to elicit cues to deceit after 3 weeks from the witnessed event.…”

“…Other details that have also been shown to differentiate truth tellers from lie tellers-including in interviews that employed the MS or sketching while narrating interview techniques-are person, location, action, temporal, and object (PLATO) details (Harvey, Vrij, Leal, extensively in eyewitness research (e.g., Eastwood et al, 2018;Kontogianni et al, 2018), but more research is needed on these cues in deception research. For example, experiments that tested sketching a past experience showed that PLATO details emerged more among truth tellers than lie tellers (Deeb, Vrij, Leal, Fallon, et al, 2021;Izotovas et al, 2020;Vrij et al, 2010), whereas an experiment that used the MS tool to elicit veracity differences about future activities (intentions) found the opposite results (Kleinberg et al, 2018). These contradictory findings may have resulted from differences in interview techniques (sketching vs. MS) or in context (past events vs. intentions).…”

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

“…Differences in temporal details emerged only in Phase 1 of the interview when participants provided a free recall, whereas differences in person details emerged only in Phase 2 of the interview after a map was presented. The findings on person, location, and action details are consistent with sketch-based research showing that truth tellers provided more of these details in their verbal reports than lie tellers (Izotovas et al, 2020;Vrij et al, 2012;Vrij et al, 2020). This may be explained by lie tellers' unwillingness to provide precise descriptions, particularly of persons, because they fear that this may implicate them.…”

“…Interviewees may be asked to either sketch and then to narrate or to sketch while narrating Eastwood et al, 2019;Marlow & Hilbourne, 2011). Findings in the deception literature generally overlap for those two methods of introducing sketches and show that truth tellers provide more verbal details than lie tellers (Izotovas et al, 2020;Vrij et al, 2020). As truth tellers report an experienced event, whereas lie tellers fabricate at least some parts of the reported event, truth tellers' verbal reports of the event are likely to be richer than lie tellers' verbal reports (Amado et al, 2015).…”

“…Location and temporal details were examined as part of the Reality Monitoring approach (Johnson & Raye, 1981) and the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (Volbert & Steller, 2014), and they were more common in truth tellers' reports than in lie tellers' reports (Amado et al, 2015;Gancedo et al, 2021;Oberlader et al, 2016). A few sketch-based studies also showed that truth tellers reported more PLAT (person, location, action, temporal) details than lie tellers, and some of these effects seem to last even after a time delay (Izotovas et al, 2020;Vrij et al, 2010;Vrij et al, 2020). We were interested in understanding if PLATO details would also be elicited in interviews involving maps.…”