Are you as good as me at telling a story? Individual differences in interpersonal reality monitoring

Nahari, Galit; Vrij, Aldert

doi:10.1080/1068316x.2013.793771

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nahari (2012) found that the very same statement was assessed by professional lie detectors (e.g., police officers) as being poor in detail and by laypersons (students) as being rich in detail, presumably because of the tendency of the former to be suspicious (Masip, Alonso, Garrido, & Anton, 2005). In another study, Nahari and Vrij (2014) found that the perception of richness of other people's statements depended upon the tendency of the receivers to tell a rich story themselves. Specifically, the richer their own statements were compared to the other person's statement, the more critical they were when evaluating the other person's statement.…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…For example, Nahari et al (2012) reported standard deviations of 91.35 (truth-tellers) and 53.60 (liars) in the number of words spoken, which were large compared to the total number of words spoken (243.14 by truthtellers and 129.20 by liars). Nahari and Vrij (2014) further showed that the tendency to provide rich or poor statements is stable across situations (i.e., stable when discussing different topics), which implies that this tendency is not random but related to personal characteristics. Indeed, the few studies that have examined individual differences have revealed significant effects.…”

Section: Style Of Languagementioning

confidence: 94%

“…There are differences among interviewees in the number of details they provide when lying or telling the truth (Nahari & Vrij, 2014). For example, Nahari et al (2012) reported standard deviations of 91.35 (truth-tellers) and 53.60 (liars) in the number of words spoken, which were large compared to the total number of words spoken (243.14 by truthtellers and 129.20 by liars).…”

Section: Style Of Languagementioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic errors (biases) in applying verbal lie detection tools: richness in detail as a test case

Nahari

Vrij

2015

Crime Psychology Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Style Of Languagementioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Style Of Languagementioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic errors (biases) in applying verbal lie detection tools: richness in detail as a test case

Nahari

Vrij

2015

Crime Psychology Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Reality Monitoring (RM) is a theoretical and analytical framework that incorporates this idea. Parallel to genuine and non-genuine memories, truthful statements are expected to be richer in detail compared to false statements (also labeled as Interpersonal Reality Monitoring, see Johnson, Bush, & Mitchell, 1998;Nahari & Vrij, 2014). Especially the amount of temporal, spatial and perceptual detail has been found to be higher in truth-tellers' statements than in liars' (Masip et al, 2005;Vrij, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

Kleinberg

Nahari²,

Arntz

et al. 2017

Collabra: Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Academic research on deception detection has largely focused on the detection of past events. For many applied purposes, however, the detection of false reports about someone's intention merits attention. Based on the verbal deception detection paradigm, we explored whether true statements on intentions were more detailed and more specific than false statements on intentions, particularly when instructed to be as specific as possible. Method: Participants (n = 222) lied or told the truth about their upcoming travel plans either providing 'as much information as possible' (standard instructions) or being 'as specific as possible' (i.e., mentioning times, locations, places; specific instructions), resulting in four conditions (truthful vs. deceptive intention by standard vs. specific instructions). We collected data via a custom-made web app and performed automated verbal content analysis of participants' written answers. Findings: We did not find a significant difference in the specificity of participants' statements. The instruction to be as specific as possible promoted more specific information but did not help to discern honest from deceptive flying intentions. Conclusion:The experiment reported here attempted to demonstrate automated verbal deception detection of intentions. The difficulty in capturing genuine intentions, and the non-intrusive, noninteractive questioning approach might explain the null findings and raise questions for further research. We conclude with suggestions for a novel framework on semi-interactive information elicitation. With an increased demand for security systems like airport border control, researchers and practitioners alike have identified the need for applications to detect deception on a large scale (Honts & Hartwig, 2014;Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010). For example, the context of airport border control excludes many tools used in deception research due to their limited applicability. With developments towards more seamless passenger flows and minimal passenger-security personnel interaction, an ideal deception detection system would be implementable at stages even before passengers arrive at the airport (e.g., a filter system during online check-in processes, Kleinberg, Arntz, & Verschuere, in press). A promising paradigm that might be applicable in settings that require the testing of a vast number of people is verbal deception detection. However, because the majority of verbal deception detection studies were conducted on the verbal content of face-to-face interviews, a key challenge is the transition towards large-scale applicable methods. This paper reports an attempt to apply verbal deception detection tools on a large-scale in an airport security context. Verbal deception detectionThe idea to use the verbal content as an indicator of deception is rooted in the Undeutsch Hypothesis (1967, 1982) stating that truthful statements differ from false declarations in quality and content because the process through which the particular statement is produced is d...

show abstract

“…Second, we could examine the proportion of cues to truthfulness, that is, the proportion of complications, complications/ (complications + common knowledge details + self − handicapping strategies, which is a within-subjects measure. Within-subjects measures are preferred by practitioners (Vrij, 2016) and scholars (Nahari, in press;Nahari & Pazuelo, 2015;Nahari & Vrij, 2014), amongst other reasons, because it creates the opportunity to design cut-off scores rules (e.g., "A statement is considered to be truthful when it has more complications than common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies combined").…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

Vrij

Leal

Mann

et al. 2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe examined whether speech-related differences between truth tellers and liars are more profound when answering unexpected questions than when answering expected questions. We also examined whether the presence of an interpreter affected these results. In the experiment, 204 participants from the United States (Hispanic participants only), Russia, and the Republic of Korea were interviewed in their native language by a native-speaking interviewer or by a British interviewer through an interpreter. Truth tellers discussed a trip that they had made during the last 12 months; liars fabricated a story about such a trip. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications.The proportion of complications distinguished truth tellers from liars better when answering unexpected than expected questions, but only in interpreter-absent interviews. The number of details provided did not differ between truth tellers and liars or between interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

show abstract

Are you as good as me at telling a story? Individual differences in interpersonal reality monitoring

Cited by 26 publications

References 29 publications

Systematic errors (biases) in applying verbal lie detection tools: richness in detail as a test case

Systematic errors (biases) in applying verbal lie detection tools: richness in detail as a test case

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About