1. Investigating the effect of self-awareness on deception: a new direction in deception research Jordan H. Nunan Dr. Andrea Shawyer Professor Becky Milne 24 th June 2016 jordan.nunan@port.ac.uk Centre of Forensic Interviewing

2. Research Rationale Detecting deception interests both researchers and criminal justice practitioners due to its significant application in the field Investigative interviewing strives to obtain a complete, detailed and accurate account from the interviewee (Milne & Powell, 2010) A reliable method for detecting deception to a criminal court’s standard of proof remains unidentified (Vrij, 2008) Zuckerman et al. (1981) - i) emotional reaction, ii) behavioural control and iii) cognitive load may highlight cues to deception. There is a shortage of research concerning the effects of self- awareness on deceiving and detecting deception In an interview situation, would a mirror opposite the interviewee affect the experience of telling their account, and success of deception detection?

3. Aims & Hypotheses Explore if: 1.Interviewee levels of self-awareness increased by using a mirror 2.The mirror affected the experience of truth and lie telling 3.The mirror affected the success of lie detection The mirror will increase self awareness of the interviewees The mirror will effect the experience of truth and lie telling The mirror will effect the success of lie detection

4. Methodology 2 x 2 factorial design - Mirror presence in interview: 2 levels (presence vs. absence) - Deception: 2 levels (truth telling vs. lying) 80 university students Four conditions Two interviewers:  interviewer 1 - (layperson interviewer)  interviewer 2 - (professional interviewer) Procedure (i) initial briefing and consent form; (ii) participant task; (iii) interview; (iv) post-interview pro forma and debriefing.

5. Experiment Room Layout Ceiling Video Camera Mirror Participant’s Chair Low Table Door Interviewer’s Chair

6. Does the presence of a mirror increase self-awareness of truthful and deceptive interviewees during the interview? Interviewees reported on a scale of 1-5 how self aware they felt during the interview  1 = Not at all self-aware  5 = Very self-aware

7. Effect of mirror on self-awareness of truthful and deceptive interviewees during the interview Interviewees reported a higher level of self-awareness with no mirror present p < 0.05

8. Does the presence of a mirror affect the difficulty for truthful and deceptive interviewees to tell their account? Interviewees reported on a scale of 1-5 how difficult they found telling their account during the interview  1 = Very easy  5 = Very difficult

9. Interviewee difficulty of telling account Liars reported significantly more difficulty than truth tellers p < 0.05 Mirror presence did not significantly increase difficulty p > 0.05

10. How did the interviewers perform regarding their veracity decision of interviewees during the interview? Interviewers were asked to tick whether they believed the interviewee was telling the truth or lying.

11. Interviewers decision and accuracy of interviewee veracity ratings No significant association between the mirror presence and the interviewers’ accuracy of judging interviewees as truth tellers or liars. No significant difference between the two interviewers regarding their accuracy of detecting deception despite their interviewing credentials differing greatly. Decision of Interviewer CorrectIncorrectTotal Count Truth30 (57.7%)22 (42.3%)52 (65%) Lie19 (67.9%)9 (32.1%)28 (35%) Total Accuracy49 (61.2%)31 (38.8%)80 (100%)

12. Does the presence of the mirror effect veracity ratings and the interviewers confidence of their decision? Interviewers rated interviewees level of truthfulness or deception on a scale of 1-10  1 = Totally truthful  10 = Totally lying Interviewers rated their decision confidence on a scale of 1-10  1 = Not at all confident  10 = Completely confident

13. Interviewer’s veracity rating of interviewees and confidence in their decision Element Mirror M (SD) No Mirror M (SD) Level of truthfulness or deception* 5.03 (2.65)3.65 (2.40) Confidence of decision 6.63 (2.56)7.23 (2.33) * p < 0.05

14. Discussion Interviewees reported a significantly higher level of self-awareness with no mirror present Liars reported significantly more difficulty in telling their account than truth tellers Mirror presence did not significantly increase difficulty ‘Feedback’ via the mirror discussed as reducing the difficulty for liars – attempted behavioural control & reduced cognitive load? Mirror had no significant effect on interviewer success of lie detection Interviewers’ reported significantly higher ratings of deception when the mirror was present No significant difference between the two interviewers regarding their accuracy of detecting deception despite their interviewing credentials differing greatly.

15. Caveats of the Research What is self-awareness? Self-reported questionnaires Self-awareness cannot be directly measured Difference in procedure between truth tellers/ liars Difficult to replicate the risks, consequences and atmosphere of a real suspect interview Difficulty in replicating a real theft within a laboratory study Further understanding is required: Only 2 interviewers used – use more? Eye tracking experiment to identify looking into mirror The mirrors effect on the interviewers Location of the mirror

16. Alternative location of the mirror Ceiling Video Camera Mirror Participant’s Chair Low Table Door Interviewer’s Chair

17. Any Questions? jordan.nunan@myport.ac.uk