Two heads are better than one? How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception

Samantha Ann Mann · Aldert Vrij · Dominic J. Shaw · Sharon Leal · Sarah Ewens · Jackie Hillman +2 more

107 citations0/0 files storedLegal and Criminological Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Deception detection and forensic psychology Memory Processes and Influences Torture, Ethics, and Law

Abstract

Background. We examined the effect of a second interviewer's demeanour on cues to deception. We predicted that a supportive demeanour would be the most beneficial for eliciting verbal cues to deceit, as it would encourage truth tellers, but not liars, to say more. In addition, we examined the extent to which interviewees deliberately made eye contact with the interviewers. Liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, and therefore have a greater drive to be convincing. Liars are thus more likely to monitor the interviewer to determine if the interviewer appears to believe them. Method. Participants appeared before two interviewers: the first asked all the questions and the second remained silent. The second interviewer exhibited either a supportive, neutral, or a suspicious demeanour. Results. Truth tellers provided significantly more detail than liars, but only in the supportive second interviewer condition. The effect of a second interviewer's demeanour on detail was perhaps remarkable given that the interviewees hardly looked at the second interviewer (less than 10% of the time). Liars displayed more deliberate eye contact (with the first interviewer) than truth tellers did. Conclusions. A supportive second interviewer has a positive effect on interviewing. We discuss this finding in the wider contexts of investigative interviewing and interviewing to detect deception.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 107 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Cues to deception.1992Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis.1965Eye-Contact, Distance and Affiliation 1985Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage 1985Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy 1986Gaze and eye contact: A research review.1996Interpersonal Deception Theory 2000Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream

Cited by

2017Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program.2020Deception in the eyes of deceiver: A computer vision and machine learning based automated deception detection 2016Does “lie to me” lie to you? An evaluation of facial clues to high-stakes deception 2015Mimicry and Investigative Interviewing: Using Deliberate Mimicry to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit 2016Using the Model Statement to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit from Native Speakers, Non‐native Speakers and Those Talking Through an Interpreter

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.