Eliciting Information and Cues to Deceit through Sketching in Interpreter‐Based Interviews

Aldert Vrij, Sharon Leal, Ronald P. Fisher, Samantha Mann, Eunkyung Jo, Alla Shaboltas, Maria Khaleeva, Juliana Granskaya, Kate Houston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

200 Downloads (Pure)


Since interviewees typically say less when an interpreter is present, we examined whether this was caused by interpreters not interpreting everything interviewees says or by interviewees providing less information. We further examined (1) the effect of a model drawing on providing information and (2) the diagnostic value of total details and the proportion of complications as cues to deceit.

Hispanic, Russian, and South Korean participants were interviewed by native interviewers or by a British interviewer through an interpreter. Truth tellers discussed a trip they had made; liars fabricated a story. Participants received no instruction (condition 1) or were instructed to sketch while narrating without (condition 2) or with (condition 3) being given examples of detailed sketches.

Interviewees said less when an interpreter was present because they provided less information. Truth tellers gave more details and, particularly, obtained a higher proportion of complications than liars. The Sketching manipulation had no effect.
Original languageEnglish
JournalApplied Cognitive Psychology
Early online date6 May 2019
Publication statusEarly online - 6 May 2019


Dive into the research topics of 'Eliciting Information and Cues to Deceit through Sketching in Interpreter‐Based Interviews'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this