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

Abstract

SummaryWe examined whether speech-related differences between truth tellers and liars are more profound when answering unexpected questions than when answering expected questions. We also examined whether the presence of an interpreter affected these results. In the experiment, 204 participants from the United States (Hispanic participants only), Russia, and the Republic of Korea were interviewed in their native language by a native-speaking interviewer or by a British interviewer through an interpreter. Truth tellers discussed a trip that they had made during the last 12 months; liars fabricated a story about such a trip. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications.The proportion of complications distinguished truth tellers from liars better when answering unexpected than expected questions, but only in interpreter-absent interviews. The number of details provided did not differ between truth tellers and liars or between interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

Unexpected questions in deception detection interviews: Does question order matter?

“…It is notable that this interaction is also not found in Vrij et al . (). Why this effect from the 2012 and 2013 studies does not replicate to these newer studies is unclear.…”

“…Hypothesis 3 was not supported: Asking questions in the unexpected‐first order did not increase the differences between truth tellers and liars. The results are in line with previous findings that the order of expected and unexpected questions has little or no influence on the amount of information given in an interview (Vrij et al ., ) and contrast with studies that suggested that asking unexpected question increases lie detection accuracy (Clemens, Granhag and Strömwall, 2011). It is possible that order only affects consistency‐based lie detection cues and not detail‐based ones.…”

“…Vrij et al . () studied similar order effects in interpreter‐mediated interviews that included questions about a trip (expected) and questions about the planning of a trip (unexpected). They found that the order of these questions did not affect the amount of detail provided.…”

Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: The ghostwriter method

“…Common knowledge details are strongly invoked stereotypical information about events (Vrij, Leal, Mann, et al ., ) (‘I went to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam and saw many Van Gogh's paintings’). Liars are thought to report more common knowledge details than truth tellers.…”

“…() found that truth tellers reported more complications than liars, particularly after listening to a Model Statement (Veracity × Model Statement interaction). A complication is an occurrence that makes a situation more difficult to report than necessary (Vrij, Leal, Mann, et al ., ) (‘The hotel room was double booked, so they had to find us a different hotel’). Truth tellers are thought to report more complications than liars because liars prefer to keep their stories simple (Hartwig, Granhag, & Strömwall, ), whereas reporting complications makes the story more complex.…”