Procedure

Upon entry into the laboratory, participants were informed that the study involved storytelling, and that they would be asked a series of questions based on their experience in the laboratory. Prior to experimental manipulation, participants were introduced to researcher one and completed consent forms, as well as personality questionnaires that were used for a separate research project. Upon completion of these materials, the experimental manipulation began.

2.2.2 (a) Stage 1

The experimental paradigm involved a game of Connect 4 with a researcher, culminating in an additional researcher coming into the room and stating that money had gone missing. Participants in the Truthful condition actually played the game with the researcher. Participants in the Deceptive condition did not actually play the game but read a transcript of events that they use to construct an alibi. This paradigm was adapted from previously published research (Vrij et al., 2008; Vrij, Mann, Leal & Fisher, 2010).

42 Truthful Condition: Participants in this condition remained in the original room (further denoted as the “game room”) and were introduced to a second researcher. Researcher one left the room, allowing researcher two to start to play a game of Connect 4 with the participant. During this game the researcher engaged the individual

participants in conversations on such topics as course load, vacation, future plans and social life. After approximately five to seven minutes, researcher one re-entered the game room, picked up a textbook and left the room. The game continued for

approximately five to seven minutes until researcher two stepped out to answer a phone call, leaving the participant in the room alone for a brief period before returning.

Researcher two returned and the game-play resumed. After approximately three minutes, researcher one returned to the game room and stated that he forgot his wallet. Researcher one picked up a wallet that was left on the desk during the entire game and stated that $10 was missing. Researcher two reported that the participant was only left alone in the room for a brief period of time while she took a phone call. Researcher one left the room, under the guise that he was going to enlist the help of a third researcher (the interviewer) to help determine what happened. Researcher two informed the participant that he/she would be interviewed by a third researcher in a separate room to determine whether he/she took the money. The participants were informed that if they were able to convince the interviewer that they did not take the money, they would earn $10.

Deceptive Condition: Participants assigned to this condition did not experience the above event (game), but were asked to create a story about experiencing the event after reading a short synopsis of the event as experienced by the participants in the Truthful condition. First, participants were provided the initial informed consent and

43 questionnaires by the first researcher. The second researcher entered the game room and explained that the participant would be required to take $10 out of the wallet in the room. Researcher two provided the participant with a template based on the Truthful condition that the participant can use to construct an alibi. The second researcher informed the participants that they would be interviewed by a third researcher in a separate room and instructed them to add whatever information they deemed appropriate to make their respective alibis believable. In addition to the verbal instructions, participants in this condition were provided the template with the following information on a sheet of paper:

“You entered the room and played a few games of connect four with [researcher two]. Connect Four is a board game similar to tic-tac-toe played with discs similar to checkers pieces. The goal of the game is to be the first to line up 4 pieces on the board while taking alternating turns. A short time later, [researcher one], who shares the laboratory, enters the room and you all have a brief conversation and he leaves. The game continues until [researcher two] receives a phone call and leaves the room before returning. The game continues until [researcher one] comes back into the lab and locates the wallet that is on the desk. This person opens the wallet, and claims that there is $10 missing.”

“The wallet is sitting on the table in the corner of the room. Take the $10 out of the wallet. You will be interviewed by a separate person to determine whether you took the $10. If you convince the interviewer that you did not take the money, you will get to keep the $10.”

When they had read the template and confirmed they understood the instructions, participants were left alone in the room for 10-14 minutes to construct and practice their

44 alibi without input or assistance from either researcher. After approximately 5 to 7 minutes, a researcher entered the room to ask if the participant had any questions before leaving the participant to continue to practice. After the allotted practice time was complete, researcher two asked the participant if he/she was ready for the interview. The participant was brought into the next room to be interviewed. The timing allotments were chosen to provide consistency with the Truth condition and to ensure there was equal delay between the manipulation and subsequent interview. While participants in the Deceptive condition were not explicitly told not to mention practicing their alibi during the interview, none of the participants discussed this during their interview.

Video Recording: A video recorder was placed in the game room to record the entire interaction of stage one for both the Truthful and Deceptive conditions. This camera was hidden in a file folder box in the corner of the room that allowed for the entire room to be monitored. The purpose of this camera was to ensure that the

information that participants provided in the interview was accurate. The conversations between the participants and researcher were reviewed for accuracy, and each game room session was viewed to ensure that participants in the Truthful condition did not take the money and the participants in the Deceptive condition actually took the money from the wallet.

2.2.2. (b) Stage 2

After the first stage of the study was completed, participants in both conditions were taken to a second room to meet with the interviewer. The participant was directed to a pre-arranged chair which was positioned approximately 2.5 feet from the interviewer.

45 A video camera sat in the corner of the room in plain sight, recording the participant. The interview was conducted face to face, with both parties seated in chairs directly across from each other without any obstructions.

Participants in both conditions were asked the same questions in the same order by the same interviewer, who was blind to the experimental condition. All interviews began with the same introduction by the interviewer:

“As you know my lab-mate [researcher one] is missing money, and we just want to find out what happened. I am not necessarily blaming you, but I would like you to provide me with a story that makes sense so I can understand what happened in the previous room. “

The interview began with two baseline questions that served as the rapport stage of the cognitive interview. The first question involved recounting the events of the past weekend and the second involved projecting where the participant saw his or her self in the next 5 years. The introduction and personal questions were based on Geiselman’s (2012) recommendation to present the interviewer not as a superior or authority figure but an equal who shows interest in the “suspect” as an individual. After the baseline questions were answered the interview commenced. The interviewer asked the five questions based on the CIS in the same order. The stages were comprised of an initial recall of the event, drawing the scene to explain the sequence of events, reverse order recall, a challenge question where the researcher reports that the participant has been inconsistent, and a final recall of all the previous information including anything else the participant would like to add. The wordings of these questions followed the same structure as used by Vrij et al. (2008) in order to maintain a measure of experimental

46 consistency across studies. At the conclusion of each phase, the interviewer asked “is there anything else you would like to add?” before moving on to the next stage. The interviewer did not ask any clarification or additional follow up questions of any of the participants.

The interview was concluded when all questions were answered. The interviewer left the room briefly, instructing the participant that he needed to review the answers provided. After approximately 5 minutes, Researcher one returned to the room and informed all participants that the interviewer was unable to determine whether or not they were telling the truth. Depending on condition, participants were either provided with or allowed to keep $10 for their participation. Participants were debriefed about the purpose of the study, but were not told that the incentive was distributed regardless of

performance, as any discussion with their classmates would have resulted in contamination of future participants.