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

Abstract

Background: Investigators often use maps in forensic interviews to verify a route that was taken by a suspect to obtain additional information, and to assess credibility. Method: We examined the effects of the level of map richness on the elicitation of information and cues to deceit. A total of 112 participants completed a mock secret mission and were asked to tell the truth (to a friendly agent) or to lie (to a hostile agent) about it in an interview. In phase 1 of the interview, all participants provided a verbal free recall of the mission. In phase 2, half of the participants were given a detailed map that included all street names and landmarks of the city where they completed the mission (zoomed in to 80%), and the other half were given a less detailed map that included the names of only major streets and landmarks (zoomed in to 60%). All participants were asked to verbally describe the mission and the route taken while sketching on the map. Results: Compared to lie tellers, truth tellers provided more location, action, temporal, and object details and complications in phase 1, and new person, location, action, and object details and complications in phase 2. Map richness did not have an effect on the amount of information elicited and had an equal effect on truth tellers and lie tellers. Conclusions: This initial experiment in this research area suggests that investigators do not have to worry about the exact level of map detailedness when introducing maps in interviews.

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

“…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. Our results replicate previous findings in which the tested verbal cues distinguished truth tellers and lie tellers who reported past events in single and multiple interviews (Deeb, Vrij, Leal, Fallon, et al, 2021;. Thus, all these verbal cues-including PLATO details, which were not extensively examined previously-seem promising for lie detection in multiple interviews.…”

“…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).…”

Sketching routes to elicit information and cues to deceit

“…Recently, deception researchers started examining PLATO details for the purpose of lie detection (Deeb, Vrij, Leal, Fallon, et al, 2021;, and they showed that truth tellers provide more PLATO details than lie tellers. These findings are likely driven by truth tellers being more able and willing than lie tellers to provide richer accounts given that they have experienced the event.…”

“…To our knowledge, only one experiment (Deeb, Vrij, Leal, Fallon, et al, 2021) tested the effects of printed maps on information elicitation and lie detection. However, it aimed to examine the effects of map richness (detailed vs. non‐detailed printed maps) on eliciting information and cues to deceit (no difference was found between the two maps).…”

“…Their importance for intelligence‐gathering settings led to them being extensively examined in the eyewitness literature (e.g., Dando et al, 2011; Hope et al, 2014), and they seem to be naturally provided by eyewitnesses or suspects who have experienced an event (e.g., Alison et al, 2013; Eastwood et al, 2019; Leins et al, 2014). Recently, deception researchers started examining PLATO details for the purpose of lie detection (Deeb, Vrij, Leal, Fallon, et al, 2021; Deeb, Vrij, Leal, & Mann, 2021), and they showed that truth tellers provide more PLATO details than lie tellers. These findings are likely driven by truth tellers being more able and willing than lie tellers to provide richer accounts given that they have experienced the event.…”