Proportion of complications in interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews

Abstract

Recently, researchers have started searching for combinations of verbal cues to deceit and verbal cues to truth. The proportion of complications (complications divided by complications plus common knowledge details plus self-handicapping strategies) is an example of such a combination, as it includes one verbal cue of truth (complications) and two verbal cues of deceit (common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies). This study examines whether or not complications, common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies and the proportion of complications can differentiate truth-tellers from liars in interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews. Both interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews take place frequently, and it is important to know whether or not any given lie detection tool works in both interview settings. For this purpose, three data sets were obtained and the data were aggregated. All four variables were found to differentiate truth-tellers from liars to a similar extent in both interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

Keywords:

• deception
• proportion of complications
• interpreters

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Aldert Vrij has declared no conflict of interests.

Sharon Leal has declared no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the university ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Note

Acknowledgements

Any opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States government.

Notes

1 Vrij, Leal, Fisher, et al. (2018) and Vrij, Leal, Mann, et al. (2018) describe different parts of the same data set; self-handicapping strategies are only reported in the latter.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group [grant no. DJF-15-1299-V-0010271], awarded to the University of Portsmouth, UK.