The effects of sketching while narrating on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews

Palena

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

et al. 2021

Self Cite

Practitioners frequently inform us that variable 'total details' is not suitable for lie detection purposes in real life interviews. Practitioners cannot count the number of details in real time and the threshold of details required to classify someone as a truth teller or a lie teller is unknown. The authors started to address these issues by examining three new verbal veracity cues: complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies. We present a meta-analysis regarding these three variables and compared the results with 'total details'. Truth tellers reported more details (d = 0.28 to d = 0.45) and more complications (d = 0.51 to d = 0.62) and fewer common knowledge details (d = -0.40 to d = -0.46) and self-handicapping strategies (d = -0.37 to d = -0.50) than lie tellers. Complications was the best diagnostic veracity cue. The findings were similar for the initial free recall and the second recall in which only new information was examined. Four moderators (scenario, motivation, modality, and interview technique) did not affect the results. As a conclusion, complications in particular appear to be a good veracity indicator but more research is required. We included suggestions for such research. La relación de las complicaciones, los detalles de observación común y las estrategias de autojustificación con la veracidad: un meta-análisis R E S U M E NLos profesionales dicen con frecuencia que la variable "detalles totales" es adecuada para la detección de mentiras en las entrevistas de la vida real. No pueden contar el número de detalles en tiempo real y se desconoce el umbral de detalles necesario para clasificar a alguien como sincero o mentiroso. Los autores comenzaron a abordar estos temas analizando tres nuevos indicadores verbales de veracidad: las complicaciones, los detalles de conocimiento público y las estrategias de falta de capacidad. Se presenta un meta-análisis de estas tres variables y se comparan los resultados con los "detalles totales". Los sujetos que dicen la verdad dan más detalles (d = 0.28 hasta d = 0.45) y complicaciones (d = 0.51 hasta d = 0.62) y menos detalles de conocimiento público (d = -0.40 hasta d = -0.46) y estrategias de justificación (d = -0.37 hasta d = -0.50) que los que mienten. Las complicaciones resultaron ser el mejor indicador diagnóstico de veracidad. Los resultados fueron iguales en la primera entrevista en recuerdo libre y en la segunda entrevista, en la que solo se analizaba información nueva. No influyeron en los resultados cuatro moderadores: el escenario, la motivación, la modalidad y la técnica de entrevista. Como conclusión, las complicaciones parecen ser un buen indicador de veracidad aunque es necesaria más investigación. Se discuten las futuras líneas de investigación.

Section: Included Studied Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Complications, Common Knowledge Details and Self-handicapping Strategies and Veracity: A Meta-analysis

Palena

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

et al. 2021

Self Cite

“…Previous research has shown that sketching while narrating in a single interview elicited more information among truth tellers than lie tellers, and this effect was larger than that for a free recall (Vrij, Leal, Fisher, Mann, et al, 2018; Vrij, Mann, et al, 2021). In an experiment that tested sketching while narrating in multiple interviews, participants were interviewed three times—each interview 1 week apart (Deeb, Vrij, Leal, & Burkhardt, 2021). The findings were similar to the MS findings discussed above.…”

Section: The Sketching While Narrating Interview Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The MS and the sketching while narrating interview techniques elicit various types of details. Both techniques increase reported complications among truth tellers more than lie tellers (Deeb, Vrij, Leal, & Burkhardt, 2021; Vrij, Leal, & Fisher, 2018). An example of a complication is, ‘I had to wait a bit because there was a crowd of people, and I did not want them to see me’.…”

Section: Verbal Cues To Deceitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lie tellers reported more unique common knowledge details than truth tellers across interviews (but not in the third interview). The strong overlap between verbal cues in the third interview and across interviews implies that in real-life cases, investigators who have access to only the statement from the third interview will not be at a disadvantage for detecting lies (for similar results, see Deeb et al, 2020;Deeb, Vrij, Leal, & Burkhardt, 2021).…”

Section: New Details In Interviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, we decided to include the manipulations in the first two interviews and a free recall in the third interview. A similar design has been employed in previous deception research on multiple interviews (Deeb et al, 2020; Deeb, Vrij, Leal, & Burkhardt, 2021). Accordingly, we made predictions for details elicited in Interview 3 and unique details elicited across the three interviews (i.e., details in Interview 1 + new details in Interview 2 + new details in Interview 3).…”

Section: The Current Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Deeb

Applied Cognitive Psychology

et al. 2021

Self Cite

The current experiment examined the effects of combining two interview techniques on information elicitation and lie detection in multiple interviews. Participants were interviewed online over three weeks. Two‐thirds of the participants (n = 114) were presented with the model statement (MS) interview technique in Interview 1 and were asked to sketch and narrate in Interview 2 (MS‐Sketch condition) or vice versa (Sketch‐MS condition). In Interview 3, all participants provided a free recall. The remaining one‐third of participants (n = 61) provided only a free recall in the three interviews. Truth tellers reported more information than lie tellers in all three interviews. In Interview 2, the Sketch‐MS condition elicited more new information and cues to deceit than the other conditions. The results imply that veracity effects are consistent across multiple interviews and the MS is effective for eliciting information and cues to deceit when preceded by an initial recall.

Sketching routes to elicit information and cues to deceit

Deeb

Applied Cognitive Psychology

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Sketching while narrating involves describing an event while sketching on a blank paper (self-generated sketch) or on a printed map. We compared the effects of selfgenerated sketches and printed maps on information elicitation and lie detection.Participants (N = 211) carried out a mock mission and were instructed to tell the truth or to lie about it in an online interview. In the first phase of the interview, all participants provided a free recall. In the second phase, participants provided another free recall or verbally described the mission while sketching on a blank paper or on a printed map. Truth tellers provided richer accounts than lie tellers.Larger effect sizes emerged for the self-generated sketch condition than for the printed map and free recall conditions. This suggests that self-generated sketches are more effective lie detection tools when information on routes and locations is sought.