Expect the Unexpected? Variations in Question Type Elicit Cues to Deception in Joint Interviewer Contexts

Abstract

We examined the effect of (i) a second interviewer's demeanour and (ii) asking expected and unexpected questions on cues to deception. We predicted that liars compared with truth tellers would provide more detail to expected questions and less detail to unexpected questions, particularly when the second interviewer is supportive. Liars prepare answers for expected questions, and a supportive interviewer will encourage them to provide more detail. By definition, liars have not prepared answers for unexpected questions, and their answers to such questions will be less detailed. Participants (N = 168) appeared before two interviewers: The first asked all the questions, and the second remained silent. The second interviewer exhibited either a supportive or a neutral demeanour. As predicted, liars provided more detail to expected questions and less detail to unexpected questions, particularly when the second interviewer was supportive. In conclusion, a supportive second interviewer elicits cues to deceit.

Are you for real? Exploring language use and unexpected process questions within the detection of identity deception

“…It is therefore reasonable to expect that liars will be able to give more detail to expected questions than to unexpected questions, and this includes being able to give more detail than truth tellers to expected questions due to the element of rehearsal and thus ease of access to the fabricated memory/answer. This supposition was supported by Lancaster et al () and Shaw et al ().…”

Design Principles for Signal Detection in Modern Job Application Systems: Identifying Fabricated Qualifications

“…Prior research has indicated that measures in the "creative expression" category generally decrease as cognitive load increases, presumably because deception is more cognitively demanding than truth telling [31,71,78]. However, the participants in this study had a brief period to prepare before responding to the questions, which should have lowered cognitive load overall [60,70]. Truthful responses to questions regarding skills may require greater levels of cognitive load than lying because a truthful response likely involves recalling specific experiences, tasks, and skills.…”

Mimicry and Investigative Interviewing: Using Deliberate Mimicry to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit

“…The finding that deliberate mimicry encouraged truth tellers in particular to talk further benefits investigators as it enlarges the differences between truth tellers and liars, which, in turn, facilitates lie detection. This finding also fits well in a current stream of deception research: encouraging interviewees to say more (Mann et al ., ; Shaw, Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Hillman, ; Leal et al ., ). Encouraging truth tellers to say more has clear benefits.…”