Causal Indicators for Assessing the Truthfulness of Child Speech in Forensic Interviews

When interviewing a child who may have witnessed a crime, the interviewer must ask carefully directed questions in order to elicit a truthful statement from the child. The presented work uses Granger causal analysis to examine and represent child-interviewer interaction dynamics over such an interview. Our work demonstrates that Granger Causal analysis of psycholinguistic and acoustic signals from speech yields significant predictors of whether a child is telling the truth, as well as whether a child will disclose witnessing a transgression later in the interview. By incorporating cross-modal Granger causal features extracted from audio and transcripts of forensic interviews, we are able to substantially outperform conventional deception detection methods and a number of simulated baselines. Our results suggest that a child's use of concreteness and imageability in their language are strong psycholinguistic indicators of truth-telling and that the coordination of child and interviewer speech signals is much more informative than the specific language used throughout the interview.

[1]  Shrikanth S. Narayanan,et al.  Identifying Truthful Language in Child Interviews , 2020, ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[2]  Megan Sim,et al.  Eliciting Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Children's Transgression Disclosures: Narrative Practice Rapport Building and a Putative Confession , 2014, Child development.

[3]  V. Talwar,et al.  Coaching, truth induction, and young maltreated children's false allegations and false denials. , 2008, Child development.

[4]  Frank Rudzicz,et al.  Automatic detection of deception in child-produced speech using syntactic complexity features , 2013, ACL.

[5]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Automatic Modeling of Dominance Effects Using Granger Causality , 2011, HBU.

[6]  Carlo Strapparava,et al.  The Lie Detector: Explorations in the Automatic Recognition of Deceptive Language , 2009, ACL.

[7]  Helen L. Fisher,et al.  Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK Today , 2011 .

[8]  Manoj Kumar,et al.  Multimodal Interaction Modeling of Child Forensic Interviewing , 2018, ICMI.

[9]  Mohamed Abouelenien,et al.  Deception Detection using Real-life Trial Data , 2015, ICMI.

[10]  Nicholas Scurich,et al.  Detecting Deception in Children: A Meta-Analysis , 2017, Law and human behavior.

[11]  Kelly McWilliams,et al.  Wrongful Acquittals of Sexual Abuse , 2017, Journal of interpersonal violence.

[12]  Pedro J. Moreno,et al.  A recursive algorithm for the forced alignment of very long audio segments , 1998, ICSLP.

[13]  M. Lamb,et al.  Rapport‐Building in Investigative Interviews of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse Victims , 2016 .

[14]  Leena Mathur,et al.  Introducing Representations of Facial Affect in Automated Multimodal Deception Detection , 2020, ICMI.

[15]  T. Lyon,et al.  Children's Under-Informative Responding is Associated with Concealment of a Transgression , 2021 .

[16]  Kyriaki Kalimeri,et al.  Modeling dominance effects on nonverbal behaviors using granger causality , 2012, ICMI '12.

[17]  C. Granger Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods , 1969 .

[18]  Shrikanth S. Narayanan,et al.  EmotiWord: Affective Lexicon Creation with Application to Interaction and Multimedia Data , 2011, MUSCLE.

[19]  S. Clark,et al.  Detecting children's true and false denials of wrongdoing: Effects of question type and base rate knowledge. , 2020, Behavioral sciences & the law.

[20]  T. Lyon,et al.  Do Prosecutors Use Interview Instructions or Build Rapport with Child Witnesses? , 2015, Behavioral sciences & the law.

[21]  Victoria Talwar,et al.  Does parental coaching affect children's false reports? Comparing verbal markers of deception. , 2018, Behavioral sciences & the law.

[22]  K. J. Sternberg,et al.  Effects of Investigative Utterance Types on Israeli Children's Responses , 1996 .

[23]  S. Clark,et al.  Adults' difficulties in identifying concealment among children interviewed with the putative confession instructions , 2020 .

[24]  Maria Hartwig,et al.  Skulking Around the Dinosaur: Eliciting Cues to Children's Deception Via Strategic Disclosure of Evidence , 2010 .

[25]  Shrikanth S. Narayanan,et al.  An investigation of vocal arousal dynamics in child-psychologist interactions using synchrony measures and a conversation-based model , 2014, INTERSPEECH.

[26]  Nicholas Scurich,et al.  Effects of the Putative Confession Instruction on Perceptions of Children's True and False Statements , 2018, Applied cognitive psychology.

[27]  C. Granger Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods , 1969 .

[28]  Y. Orbach,et al.  Age differences in young children's responses to open-ended invitations in the course of forensic interviews. , 2003, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[29]  M. Lamb,et al.  Can Children Be Useful Witnesses? It Depends How They Are Questioned , 2015 .

[30]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , 2013 .