Abstract
Interpreters are being increasingly used to bridge the language barrier between investigators and interviewees. The effect that interpreters have on investigative interviews has been neglected in both the investigative interviewing and deception detection literature. Chapter 1 introduces the topics of interpreters, deception, and rapport and emphasises the importance of studying them in investigative settings.Chapter 2 describes the first experiment, which explored the effect of interpreters on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport. Truth tellers and liars spoke about their real or pretend job. Interviewees either spoke in their native language (English), a non-native language (English), or through an interpreter in their native language (in Korean, Chinese, Hispanic, Arabic, or Urdu). The interpreter interpreted the interviewee’s answers by short consecutive interpretation (when the interpreter translates all turns of talk sentence by sentence) or long consecutive interpretation (when the interpreter translates segments of talk which may vary considerably in length). Findings indicated that interviewees who spoke through an interpreter provided less detail than interviewees who spoke in their first language and interviewees who spoke a foreign language without an interpreter. The latter two groups did not differ from each other. Additionally, cues to deceit occurred more frequently when interviewees spoke without an interpreter. Rapport was not affected by the presence of an interpreter, veracity, or the mode of translation (short or long consecutive).
Chapter 3, the second experiment, examines the effect of the interpreter’s seating position (behind the interviewee, next to the interviewer facing the interviewee, or outside the room with a telephone) on eliciting information, cues to deceit, and rapport. It also investigated the reasons why those who speak in their native language through an interpreter say less than those who speak in their native language without an interpreter. The interpreter used the long consecutive interpretation method. Interviewees either lied or told the truth about a mock secret meeting they watched, and either spoke in their native language (English), a non-native language (English), or through an interpreter in their native language (in Korean, Chinese, or Hispanic). Interviewees who spoke in their native language provided more detail than interviewees who spoke in their native language through an interpreter or interviewees who spoke in a non-native language without an interpreter. The latter groups did not differ from each other. Additionally, the amount of detail differentiated truth tellers from liars in all interview conditions and interviewees found the presence of an interpreter to be a largely positive experience. No difference was found between the three seating positions in terms of the elicitation of information, cues to deceit, and in interviewees’ self-reported experiences with the interpreter. The presence of an interpreter had no effect on rapport but liars experienced lower levels of rapport with the interviewer than truth tellers.
Chapter 4, the third experiment, introduces a model statement (MS) to the interview. This is a detailed statement unrelated to the interview topic which indicates the level of detail that is required by the interviewees in their responses. The study further investigated whether the level of English proficiency of those who were speaking through an interpreter had an effect on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport. Level of English was split into either high level of English proficiency or low level of English proficiency. As with the study outlined in Chapter 3, interviewees either lied or told the truth about a mock secret meeting they watched, but this time they reported that meeting twice, once before the MS and then, again, after the MS. Chapter 4, the third experiment, introduces a model statement (MS) to the interview. This is a detailed statement unrelated to the interview topic which indicates the level of detail that is required by the interviewees in their responses. The study further investigated whether the level of English proficiency of those who were speaking through an interpreter had an effect on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport. Level of English was split into either high level of English proficiency or low level of English proficiency. As with the study outlined in Chapter 3, interviewees either lied or told the truth about a mock secret meeting they watched, but this time they reported that meeting twice, once before the MS and then, again, after the MS.
Chapter 5 describes a questionnaire study that explores the perceptions of UKpolice investigators with regard to using interpreters. The questionnaire focuses on theprocedural aspects of interviews with interpreters, participants’ perceptions of theimpact that interpreters have on interviews, and their feelings about using interpreters. Findings revealed an inconsistency in procedures used in terms of modes of interpretation and positioning of the interpreter; a limited awareness of the impact that interpreters may have on interviews but an overall generally positive view regarding working with interpreters. Chapter 6 summarises the main findings of this thesis along with a discussion about implications, future research and limitations.
| Date of Award | Sept 2015 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Aldert Vrij (Supervisor), Lucy Akehurst (Supervisor) & Sharon Leal (Supervisor) |