Lying about flying: The efficacy of the information protocol and model statement for detecting deceit

Abstract

Due to time constraints interviews aimed to detect deception in airport settings should be brief and veracity assessments should be made in real time. In two experiments carried out in the departure hall of an international airport, truth tellers were asked to report truthfully their forthcoming trip, whereas liars were asked to lie about the purpose of their trip. In Experiment 1 we examined five verbal cues we thought had potential to discriminate truth tellers from liars in short airport interviews: Elaboration in disclosing information, checkable details, how many people are aware of the trip, complications, and plausibility. In Experiment 2 we attempted to improve the interview protocol by adding a second interview phase in which we introduced an Information Protocol and Model Statement. All five cues differentiated truth tellers from liars in both experiments but the Information Protocol and Model Statement did not enhance these differences.

Sketching routes to elicit information and cues to deceit

“…Truth tellers reported more complications, verifiable sources and PLATO details than lie tellers, and the magnitude of these effects was medium to large and were supported by the Bayesian analyses. These findings are consistent with previous research (Deeb, Vrij, Leal, & Mann, 2021; Vrij, Leal, et al, 2020), and reinstate these detail types as valid veracity cues. The post‐interview questionnaire responses shed light into the strategies used by truth tellers and lie tellers.…”

Combining Verbal Veracity Assessment Techniques to Distinguish Truth Tellers from Lie Tellers

“…This underlines our earlier conclusion, that the more truthful information lie tellers report, the more they will sound like truth tellers and the more difficult it will become to distinguish them from truth tellers. That verifiable sources discriminated truth tellers from lie tellers is in alignment with previous research (Leal, Vrij, Vernham, et al, 2018;Vrij, Leal, Deeb, et al, 2019) and good news for practitioners who are interested in the Verifiability Approach. Counting verifiable and unverifiable details, as advocated in the Verifiability Approach, is impossible to achieve for practitioners in real time, whereas they can count verifiable sources in real time.…”

Reproducibility in lie detection research: A case study of the cue called complications

“…Authors claimed that ‘[t]ruth tellers' statements about an alleged experience are based on episodic memory […] whereas lie tellers' statements are likely to contain elements of semantic memory […], which could result in reporting […] more complications […] (Burkhardt et al., 2024, p. 2)’. Others argued that ‘Making up complications requires cognitive resources, but lie tellers may not have adequate cognitive resources to do so (Vrij, Leal, Deeb, Chan, Khader, et al., 2020; Vrij, Leal, Mann, Shaboltas, Khaleeva, et al., 2020; Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Fisher, 2020; Vrij, Mann, Leal, Fisher, & Deeb, 2020)’.…”