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)

Abstract

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

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

“…In the 14 published MS studies that we are interested in, information elicitation effects were observed (Bogaard, Meijer, & Vrij, 2014; Bogaard et al, 2020; Ewens et al, 2016; Harvey, Vrij, Leal, Lafferty, & Nahari, 2017; Harvey, Vrij, Leal, Hope, & Mann, 2019; Kleinberg, Van Der Toolen, Vrij, Arntz, & Verschuere, 2018; Leal et al, 2015; Leal, Vrij, Deeb, & Jupe, 2018; Leal, et al, 2019b; Porter et al, 2018, Porter & Salvanelli, 2020; Vrij et al, 2017a; Vrij, Leal, Jupe, & Harvey, 2018; Vrij et al, 2020). However, in general, a review of the literature reveals that the MS has been (largely) unsuccessful at enhancing lie‐detection performance (see Table 3).…”

“…Leal and colleagues (2018, 2019b) made a distinction between core and peripheral detail reported by interviewees after hearing a MS. Core details include information about the main event, whereas peripheral details include information that is irrelevant to the main event.…”

“…The published MS literature reveals few interaction effects between veracity (whether the interviewee is truthful or deceptive) and interviewing condition (whether a MS is present or not). This indicates that verbal differences (e.g., reported detail) between liars and truth tellers are of similar magnitude regardless of providing (or not providing) a MS. For a large class of dependent variables, the MS did not reliably enhance researcher's ability to distinguish between genuine and fabricated verbal output (Bogaard et al, 2014, 2020; Ewens et al, 2016; Kleninberg et al, 2018; Leal et al, 2015, 2018, 2019b; Vrij et al, 2017a, 2018). To allow for comparisons between MS studies, we suggest that overall detail (based upon RM criteria; Johnson, 2006) should be included in future research.…”

“…In terms of information elicitation, empirical research shows that the MS does prompt interviewees to say more (Bogaard et al, 2020; Ewens et al, 2016; Harvey et al, 2017, 2019; Kleinberg et al, 2018; Leal et al, 2018, 2019b; Vrij et al, 2017a, 2018a, 2018b). That is, typically participants provided more detailed statements in the MS conditions, compared to a control condition where no MS was present.…”

“…Core details include information about the main event, whereas peripheral details include information that is irrelevant to the main event. It is important to note that only found peripheral information to be an effective measure for detecting liars, and unfortunately this effect failed to be replicated (see Leal et al, 2019b).…”