Using the Model Statement to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit from Native Speakers, Non‐native Speakers and Those Talking Through an Interpreter

Abstract

We examined how the presence of an interpreter during an interview affects eliciting information and cues to deceit, whilst using a method that encourages interviewees to provide more detail (model statement, MS). Sixty native English speakers were interviewed in English, and 186 non-native English speakers were interviewed in English or through an interpreter. Interviewees either lied or told the truth about a mock security meeting, which they reported twice: in an initial free recall and after listening to the MS. The MS resulted in the native English speakers and those interviewed with an interpreter providing more reminiscences (additional detail) than the non-native English speakers interviewed without an interpreter. As a result, those interviewed through an interpreter provided more detail than the non-native English speakers, but only after the MS. Native English participants were most detailed in both recalls. No difference was found in the amount of reminiscences provided by liars and truth tellers.

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

“…A consistent finding in these experiments is that when interviewees speak in their own language through an interpreter, fewer details are provided than when interviewees speak in their own language without an interpreter (Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, & Fisher, 2016;Ewens et al, 2017;Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, Shaboltas, 2016;Vrij, Leal, et al, 2017). Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, Shaboltas, et al (2016) found evidence for two explanations. First, interpreters did not translate every detail that the interviewee gave.…”

“…We are aware of only six experimental studies published in this area (Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, & Fisher, 2016;Ewens et al, 2017;Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, Shaboltas, 2016;Houston, Russano, & Ricks, 2017;Vrij, et al, in press;Vrij, Leal, et al, 2017). A consistent finding in these experiments is that when interviewees speak in their own language through an interpreter, fewer details are provided than when interviewees speak in their own language without an interpreter (Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, & Fisher, 2016;Ewens et al, 2017;Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, Shaboltas, 2016;Vrij, Leal, et al, 2017).…”

“…Remembering all the details that an interviewee conveys is difficult in such a situation, and the interpreters failed to translate about 10% of the details given by the interviewees. Second, interviewees actually reported less with an interpreter present (Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, Shaboltas, et al, 2016). Perhaps, the interpreter's interruptions disrupted the interviewee's train of thought and made memory retrieval more difficult (Nelson & Goodmon, 2003;Vrij, Hope, & Fisher, 2014), or perhaps, the interviewees decided to be concise when an interpreter was present given the extra time it takes to communicate through an interpreter (similar to people being more concise when talking to a hard-of-hearing person).…”

“…We did this because it is this speech that interviewers will understand in real life interviews with interpreters. In a study in which in the interpreterpresent interviews both the interviewee's and interpreter's speeches were both transcribed, coded, and analysed, virtual identical findings in the two data sets emerged in terms of (a) eliciting information and (b) the difference in reported details between truth tellers and liars (Ewens, Vrij, Leal, Mann, Jo, Shaboltas, et al, 2016).…”

Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: The ghostwriter method

“…A Model Statement is a detailed example of an account unrelated to the topic of investigation (Leal et al ., ). Exposing interviewees to a Model Statement works as a social comparison (Festinger, ) and raises the expectations amongst interviewees about how much information they are expected to report (Ewens et al ., ). It raises such expectations in truth tellers as well as liars, with the result that both groups report a similar amount of extra detail after being exposed to a Model Statement (Vrij, Leal, & Fisher, ).…”