Jackie Hillman

Outsmarting the liars The benefit of asking unanticipated questions

We hypothesised that the responses of pairs of liars would correspond less with each other than would responses of pairs of truth tellers, but only when the responses are given to unanticipated questions. Liars and truth tellers were interviewed individually about having had lunch together in a restaurant. The interviewer asked typical opening questions which we expected the liars to anticipate, followed by questions about spatial and/or temporal information which we expected suspects not to anticipate, and also a request to draw the layout of the restaurant. The results supported the hypothesis, and based on correspondence in responses to the unanticipated questions, up to 80% of liars and truth tellers could be correctly classified, particularly when assessing drawings.

Lying Eyes: Why Liars Seek Deliberate Eye Contact

Mann et al. (Mann, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Warmelink, L., & Forrester, D. [2012]. Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contact as a cue to deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 205–251; Mann, S., Vrij, A., Shaw, D., Leal, S., Ewans, S., Hillman, J., Granhag, P. A., & Fisher, R. P. [2012]. Two heads are better than one? How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02055.x) found that liars display more deliberate eye contact than truth-tellers but did not examine the reasons why they do this. We hypothesized that liars seek more eye contact because they want to convince the interviewer that they are telling the truth and want to check whether the interviewer appears to believe them. In the present experiment, truth-tellers (N = 76) prepared room A for a seminar. Liars (N = 81) ‘illegally’ copied encrypted information in room B and were instructed to use as an alibi that they were preparing room A for a seminar. Liars displayed more deliberate eye contact than truth-tellers. In addition, liars were more inclined than truth-tellers to report that they had displayed deliberate eye contact to convince the interviewer and to check whether the interviewer believed them. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Who should I look at? Eye contact during collective interviewing as a cue to deceit

Pairs of liars and pairs of truth tellers were interviewed and the amount of eye contact they made with the interviewer and each other was coded. Given that liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, we expected liars to monitor the interviewer to see whether they were being believed, and to try harder to convince the interviewer that they were telling the truth. It was hypothesised that this monitoring would manifest itself through more eye contact with the interviewer and less eye contact with each other than in the case of truth tellers. A total of 43 pairs of participants took part in the experiment. Truth tellers had lunch in a nearby restaurant. Liars took some money from a purse, and were asked to pretend that instead of taking the money, they had been to a nearby restaurant together for lunch. Pairs of liars looked less at each other and displayed more eye contact with the interviewer than pairs of truth tellers. The implications of these findings are discussed.

‘I'm a photographer, not a terrorist’:the use of photography to detect deception

When planning large-scale incidents or bombing campaigns, terrorists often conduct reconnaissance research to identify key targets. This may include taking photographs of potential target locations. Identifying an effective real-time method to distinguish between genuine photographers and those with more sinister intent may be beneficial for law enforcement and security agencies. Participants took photographs in a public place with a genuine intent (truth tellers) or sinister intent (liars). After taking these photographs, the participants were approached by an undercover interviewer (a mime artist) who asked them whether he could see the photographs. Later, the participants discussed their photographs in a formal interview. First, liars were less cooperative in their interaction with the undercover interviewer than truth tellers. Second, in the formal interview, liars mentioned some security features that appeared in the photographs more than truth tellers. The findings suggest that ‘using photographs to detect deception’ is a subject that could prove important to explore to benefit forensic and counter-terrorist practice.