Expect the unexpected? variations in question type elicit cues to deception in joint interviewer contexts

Summary: 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. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Suspects are frequently interviewed with two interviewers present in the room. For example, a survey amongst UK police officers revealed that 68% of interviews with juvenile suspects are conducted with more than one investigator present (Sim & Lamb, 2012). In addition, suspect interviews in human intelligence settings are also frequently carried out with two interviewers (Soufan, 2011). Research papers on using pairs of interviewers, outside the intelligence (or police) context, have revealed three advantages of this technique (Huber & Power, 1985; Kincaid & Bright, 1957). First, it is efficient as one interviewer can engage in conversation while the other can concentrate on recording answers accurately and completely. Second, when the interview becomes unstructured orwhenthe first interviewervigorously pursues one train of thought, a second interviewer can pick up on points missed by the first interviewer. Third, when analysing the interviews, the second interviewer canaid the recall of the first.Despitethe frequent use of two interviewers, there is not much forensic research examining the effect of using a second interviewer on suspect’s responses. In the present experiment, we examined which demeanour (being supportive or neutral) a second interviewer should adopt to maximise verbal differences between truthful and deceptive interviewees. We examined the effect of the second interviewer’s demeanour on the answers to (i) questions that were in all likelihood anticipated and (ii) questions that were in all likelihood not anticipated.

[1]  Michael K. Altekruse,et al.  Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Judgments of Facilitative Conditions. , 1979 .

[2]  M. Lamb,et al.  Police Perceptions of Interviews With Juvenile Suspects , 2012 .

[3]  R. Fisher,et al.  Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview , 1992 .

[4]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence , 2005 .

[5]  A. Vrij,et al.  Imposing cognitive load to elicit cues to deceit: inducing the reverse order technique naturally , 2012 .

[6]  C. Meissner,et al.  A positive, collaborative, and theoretically-based approach to improving deception detection , 2012 .

[7]  Drew A Leins,et al.  Drawing on Liars' Lack of Cognitive Flexibility: Detecting Deception Through Varying Report Modes , 2012 .

[8]  A. Vrij,et al.  Outsmarting the Liars: The Benefit of Asking Unanticipated Questions , 2009, Law and human behavior.

[9]  Ray Bull,et al.  Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice , 1999 .

[10]  Gary D. Bond.  Focus on basic cognitive mechanisms and strategies in deception research (and remand custody of ‘wizards’ to Harry Potter movies) , 2012 .

[11]  Günter Köhnken.  Social Psychology and the Law , 1996 .

[12]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[13]  R. E. Geiselman,et al.  Reverse versus forward recall of script‐based texts , 1990 .

[14]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  M. Patterson,et al.  Invited article: A parallel process model of nonverbal communication , 1995 .

[16]  Maria Hartwig,et al.  Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations , 2007 .

[17]  Ray Bull,et al.  Increasing Cognitive Load to Facilitate Lie Detection: The Benefit of Recalling an Event in Reverse Order , 2008, Law and human behavior.

[18]  Ali H. Soufan,et al.  The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda , 2011 .

[19]  Jaume Masip,et al.  Guilty and innocent suspects’ self-reported strategies during an imagined police interview , 2011 .

[20]  E F Loftus,et al.  Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: the power of (a few) minor details. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Fenna H. Poletiek,et al.  The Effects of Unexpected Questions on Detecting Familiar and Unfamiliar Lies , 2013 .

[22]  A. Vrij,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Details in Intentions: A Cue to Detecting Deception , 2013 .

[23]  Sandra S. Smith-Hanen.  Effects of Nonverbal Behaviors on Judged Levels of Counselor Warmth and Empathy. , 1977 .

[24]  Galit Nahari,et al.  Does the Truth Come Out in the Writing? SCAN as a Lie Detection Tool , 2011 .

[25]  Christian A. Meissner,et al.  The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. , 2010 .

[26]  A. Vrij.  Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies. , 2005 .

[27]  A. Vrij,et al.  Using sketch drawing to induce inconsistency in liars , 2011 .

[28]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Cues to deception. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[29]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture , 1991 .

[30]  Günter Köhnken.  The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts: Statement Validity Analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’ , 2004 .

[31]  Philip M. McCarthy,et al.  The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies , 2010, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[32]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal Behaviors, Persuasion, and Credibility , 1990 .

[33]  Siegfried L. Sporer,et al.  The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts: Reality monitoring and detection of deception , 2004 .

[34]  Ronald P. Fisher,et al.  Interviewing Cooperative Witnesses , 2010 .

[35]  R. Fisher,et al.  The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory , 2006 .

[36]  Marta Kutas,et al.  When temporal terms belie conceptual order , 1998, Nature.

[37]  R. Bull.  The investigative interviewing of children and other vulnerable witnesses: psychological research and working/professional practice , 2010, Investigating the Truth.

[38]  M. Kahana.  Associative retrieval processes in free recall , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[39]  M. Frank,et al.  The Effect of Rapport in Forensic Interviewing , 2002 .

[40]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Memory and Reality , 2022 .

[41]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Is anyone there? Drawings as a tool to detect deceit in occupation interviews , 2012 .