That said, one evidence-informed interviewing approach is to ask for detailed, consistent accounts in different ways. For example:
- “Can you describe exactly what happened, step by step, from beginning to end?”
- Truthful people often provide richer sensory and contextual details (though memory is never perfect).
- Someone fabricating a story may keep it vague or overly rehearsed.
- “Now tell me the same event again, but in reverse order or starting from a different point.”
- Recounting a genuine memory from a different starting point is often possible, even if some details change naturally.
- Invented stories can become harder to maintain consistently because the person has to keep track of fabricated details.
However, it’s important to keep in mind:
- Inconsistencies do not prove someone is lying. Stress, anxiety, trauma, fatigue, or normal memory limitations can all cause contradictions.
- Consistency alone doesn’t prove honesty. A rehearsed false story can be highly consistent.
- Professional investigators typically rely on corroborating evidence and structured interviewing techniques rather than trying to “spot lies” from behavior or a couple of questions.
If you’re interested in the psychology behind this, look into the Cognitive Interview and the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique. These methods are designed to improve information gathering and assess statements more effectively than relying on common lie-detection myths.