Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 12268 - 16
• Main Authors: Melis, Giulia, Ursino, Martina, Scarpazza, Cristina, Zangrossi, Andrea, Sartori, Giuseppe
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 28.05.2024; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 631/477; 631/477/2811; Adult; Classification; Deception; Female; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Interviews as Topic; Latency; Lie Detection - psychology; Machine Learning; Male; multidisciplinary; Reaction Time - physiology; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Young Adult
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63156-y

In this study, we propose an approach to detect deception during investigative interviews by integrating response latency and error analysis with the unexpected question technique. Sixty participants were assigned to an honest (n = 30) or deceptive group (n = 30). The deceptive group was instructed to memorize the false biographical details of a fictitious identity. Throughout the interviews, participants were presented with a randomized sequence of control, expected, and unexpected open-ended questions about identity. Responses were audio recorded for detailed examination. Our findings indicate that deceptive participants showed markedly longer latencies and higher error rates when answering expected (requiring deception) and unexpected questions (for which premeditated deception was not possible). Longer response latencies were also observed in participants attempting deception when answering control questions (which necessitated truthful answers). Moreover, a within-subject analysis highlighted that responding to unexpected questions significantly impaired individuals’ performance compared to answering control and expected questions. Leveraging machine-learning algorithms, our approach attained a classification accuracy of 98% in distinguishing deceptive and honest participants. Additionally, a classification analysis on single response levels was conducted. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of merging response latency metrics and error rates with unexpected questioning as a robust method for identity deception detection in investigative interviews. We also discuss significant implications for enhancing interview strategies.