Can someone fabricate verifiable details when planning in advance? It all depends on the crime scenario

Nahari, Galit; Vrij, Aldert

doi:10.1080/1068316x.2015.1077248

Cited by 17 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, an investigator should consider whether the presence of the suspect at the crime scene when the crime took place is legitimate. If this is the case, the investigator should be aware that a suspect could tell an embedded lie (see Nahari & Vrij, 2015), and thus should be careful with interpreting their richness in detail scores.…”

Section: Type Of Liementioning

confidence: 99%

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: Type Of Liementioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…In the first application of the VA to the insurance claims domain, it was found that verifiable details did not discriminate between liars and truth tellers (Nahari et al ., ). The authors reasoned that liars used embedding strategies, which allowed them to report sufficient checkable detail to appear credible due to the context in which the lie is told (Nahari & Vrij, ). Recently, Vrij, Nahari, and Isitt () replicated Nahari et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the Verifiability Approach to insurance claims settings: Exploring the effect of the information protocol

Harvey

Vrij

Nahari

et al. 2016

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Lie detection in insurance claim settings is difficult as liars can easily incorporate deceptive statements within descriptions of otherwise truthful events. We examined whether the Verifiability Approach (VA) could be used effectively in insurance settings. According to the VA, liars avoid disclosing details that they think can be easily checked, whereas truth tellers are forthcoming with verifiable details. Method The study experimentally manipulated notifying claimants about the interviewer's intention to check their statements for verifiable details (the ‘Information Protocol’). It was hypothesized that such an instruction would (1) encourage truth tellers to provide more verifiable details than liars and to report identifiable witnesses who had witnessed the event within their statements, and (2) would enhance the diagnostic accuracy of the VA. Participants reported 40 genuine and 40 fabricated insurance claim statements, in which half the liars and truth tellers were notified about the interviewer's intention to check their statements for verifiable details. Results Both hypotheses were supported. In terms of accuracy, notifying claimants about the interviewer's intention to check their statements for verifiable details increased accuracy rates from around chance level to around 80%. Conclusion The VA, including the information protocol, can be used in insurance settings.

show abstract

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, it was not logical for truth-tellers to receive instructions about a forthcoming interview. Previous deception studies have used similar designs that excluded truth-tellers where the scenario would not apply to innocent suspects (Honts et al, 1994;Nahari & Vrij, 2015;Tekin, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2016).One way liars can cover up for their crime is by providing a false alibi. As it is common for liars to provide information about events they have experienced (Culhane, Hosch, & Kehn, 2008;Leins, Fisher, & Ross, 2013), they would want to familiarise themselves with the alibi setting to be able to demonstrate they were at the setting when the the current study examines cases in which suspects provide an alibi for a location they visited only on the date the crime occurred.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visuospatial counter‐interrogation strategies by liars familiar with the alibi setting

Deeb

Granhag

Vrij

et al. 2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis study examines counter-interrogation strategies employed by liars giving false alibis. Participants (N = 144) visited a restaurant to buy a sandwich (truth-tellers) or to use it as a false alibi (liars). Half of the liars were informed they might be asked for a drawing of the alibi setting if interviewed (informed liars). Participants spent either 10 min (high familiarity condition) or 30 s (low familiarity condition) in the restaurant. All participants were asked to provide two visuospatial statements, which were assessed for salient details, nonsalient details, between-statement consistency, and statement-alibi setting consistency. Informed liars provided significantly more salient and nonsalient details than uninformed liars and truth-tellers, particularly in the high familiarity condition. No differences emerged for statement consistency types. The results suggest that liars are more concerned than truth-tellers about making a positive impression on the interviewer, and they fail to accurately reflect on truth-tellers' visuospatial statements. | INTRODUCTIONConsider a man who travels by car from the place where he lives to a distant city that he has never visited before. The man books a room in a hotel for one night. On that evening, the man targets a woman walking on the streets, abducts her in his car, and strangles her in a nearby scrapyard. The murderer then goes to a nearby pub for two hours and returns back to the hotel afterwards. On the next day, he goes to his workplace, acting as if nothing has happened. Consider another incident in which a woman murders someone in her neighbourhood and heads immediately afterwards to a festival that is hosted for the first time in the city. The woman stays there for half an hour before going home. Now, imagine that these two murderers were suspected by the police and questioned about the relevant crime. The suspects say they were at the pub/festival when the crime occurred, giving a false alibi.Investigators may want to establish if the suspects were in the claimed alibi location at the time the crime occurred. This can be determined if detailed questions about the alibi setting are asked. For the first case, investigators may come to know that the murderer booked a room for one night in a hotel situated near the crime location, so if he was in the pub, it would probably have been on the same night. Detailed questions about the suspect's stay at the pub may clarify whether he was there and the time he might have been there. For the second case, the suspect may also be asked detailed questions about the festival, which has never happened previously in the city. Hence, asking the suspect about the setting, decoration, bands' appearances, and order, among others, would assist officers in understanding whether the suspect was there or not. Now, imagine that the same murderers, before committing the crime, explored interview techniques that investigators employ. Knowing the type of questions that officers ask during interviews will help the murderers prepar...

show abstract

Can someone fabricate verifiable details when planning in advance? It all depends on the crime scenario

Abstract: In the current study we examined the effect of having the opportunity to plan an alibi in advance on the suitability of the verifiability approach in two crime scenarios that differed in their opportunity to carry out innocent activities at the time of the crime.

Cited by 17 publications

References 17 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

Applying the Verifiability Approach to insurance claims settings: Exploring the effect of the information protocol

Visuospatial counter‐interrogation strategies by liars familiar with the alibi setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About