Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter-based interviews

- In the MS-absent condition, the interviews resulted in less detail when an interpreter was present than when an interpreter was absent.
- In the MS-present condition, interviews contained a similar amount of detail in the interpreter present or absent conditions.
- Truthful statements included more complications than deceptive statements.
- Truthful statements included ewer common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies.
- The ratio of complications was higher for truth tellers than liars.
- The Model Statement strengthened these results for complications, scripts and self-handicapping strategies.

We examined how the presence of an interpreter during an interview affects eliciting information and cues to deceit, while using a method that encourages interviewees to provide more detail (model statement, MS). A total of 199 Hispanic, Korean and Russian participants were interviewed either in their own native language without an interpreter, or through an interpreter. Interviewees either lied or told the truth about a trip they made during the last twelve months. Half of the participants listened to a MS at the beginning of the interview. The dependent variables were 'detail', 'complications', 'common knowledge details', 'self-handicapping strategies' and 'ratio of complications'. In the MS-absent condition, the interviews resulted in less detail when an interpreter was present than when an interpreter was absent. In the MS-present condition, the interviews resulted in a similar amount of detail in the interpreter present and absent conditions. Truthful statements included more complications and fewer common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies than deceptive statements, and the ratio of complications was higher for truth tellers than liars. The MS strengthened these results, whereas an interpreter had no effect on these results.