Combining Verbal Veracity Assessment Techniques to Distinguish Truth Tellers from Lie Tellers

Vrij, Aldert; Mann, Samantha; Leal, Sharon; Fisher, Ronald P.

doi:10.5093/ejpalc2021a2

Cited by 30 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current research examined one interview technique to elicit information and cues to deceit. Recently, deception researchers have started recommending the use of a combination of interview techniques in practice which seems effective for eliciting information and cues to deceit (Vrij, Mann, et al, 2021). The use of a combination of a detailed map and other mnemonics, such as context reinstatement, the timeline technique (Hope et al, 2013), reverse order recall (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992), or a Model Statement , may further enhance differences between truth tellers and lie tellers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lie tellers needed to lie to the hostile agent about (i) the locations where they collected and delivered the package, (ii) the agent from whom they collected the package, (iii) the agent to whom they delivered the package, and (iv) the content of the package. These instructions reflect those used by Vrij, Mann, et al (2021). All participants were told that if they were convincing, they would be entered in a draw to win one of three prizes up to £150.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mapping Details to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit: The Effects of Map Richness1

Deeb

Vrij

Leal

et al. 2022

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Investigators often use maps in forensic interviews to verify a route that was taken by a suspect to obtain additional information, and to assess credibility. Method: We examined the effects of the level of map richness on the elicitation of information and cues to deceit. A total of 112 participants completed a mock secret mission and were asked to tell the truth (to a friendly agent) or to lie (to a hostile agent) about it in an interview. In phase 1 of the interview, all participants provided a verbal free recall of the mission. In phase 2, half of the participants were given a detailed map that included all street names and landmarks of the city where they completed the mission (zoomed in to 80%), and the other half were given a less detailed map that included the names of only major streets and landmarks (zoomed in to 60%). All participants were asked to verbally describe the mission and the route taken while sketching on the map. Results: Compared to lie tellers, truth tellers provided more location, action, temporal, and object details and complications in phase 1, and new person, location, action, and object details and complications in phase 2. Map richness did not have an effect on the amount of information elicited and had an equal effect on truth tellers and lie tellers. Conclusions: This initial experiment in this research area suggests that investigators do not have to worry about the exact level of map detailedness when introducing maps in interviews.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping Details to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit: The Effects of Map Richness1

Deeb

Vrij

Leal

et al. 2022

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No interview technique was introduced so we coded Manipulation as "absent". Vrij, Mann, et al (2021) In this study, the authors did not examine common knowledge details and selfhandicapping strategies. Further, this experiment explored the effect of applying multiple techniques in one interview.…”

Section: Conflict Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Relationship between Complications, Common Knowledge Details and Self-handicapping Strategies and Veracity: A Meta-analysis

Vrij

Palena

Leal

et al. 2021

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practitioners frequently inform us that variable 'total details' is not suitable for lie detection purposes in real life interviews. Practitioners cannot count the number of details in real time and the threshold of details required to classify someone as a truth teller or a lie teller is unknown. The authors started to address these issues by examining three new verbal veracity cues: complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies. We present a meta-analysis regarding these three variables and compared the results with 'total details'. Truth tellers reported more details (d = 0.28 to d = 0.45) and more complications (d = 0.51 to d = 0.62) and fewer common knowledge details (d = -0.40 to d = -0.46) and self-handicapping strategies (d = -0.37 to d = -0.50) than lie tellers. Complications was the best diagnostic veracity cue. The findings were similar for the initial free recall and the second recall in which only new information was examined. Four moderators (scenario, motivation, modality, and interview technique) did not affect the results. As a conclusion, complications in particular appear to be a good veracity indicator but more research is required. We included suggestions for such research. La relación de las complicaciones, los detalles de observación común y las estrategias de autojustificación con la veracidad: un meta-análisis R E S U M E NLos profesionales dicen con frecuencia que la variable "detalles totales" es adecuada para la detección de mentiras en las entrevistas de la vida real. No pueden contar el número de detalles en tiempo real y se desconoce el umbral de detalles necesario para clasificar a alguien como sincero o mentiroso. Los autores comenzaron a abordar estos temas analizando tres nuevos indicadores verbales de veracidad: las complicaciones, los detalles de conocimiento público y las estrategias de falta de capacidad. Se presenta un meta-análisis de estas tres variables y se comparan los resultados con los "detalles totales". Los sujetos que dicen la verdad dan más detalles (d = 0.28 hasta d = 0.45) y complicaciones (d = 0.51 hasta d = 0.62) y menos detalles de conocimiento público (d = -0.40 hasta d = -0.46) y estrategias de justificación (d = -0.37 hasta d = -0.50) que los que mienten. Las complicaciones resultaron ser el mejor indicador diagnóstico de veracidad. Los resultados fueron iguales en la primera entrevista en recuerdo libre y en la segunda entrevista, en la que solo se analizaba información nueva. No influyeron en los resultados cuatro moderadores: el escenario, la motivación, la modalidad y la técnica de entrevista. Como conclusión, las complicaciones parecen ser un buen indicador de veracidad aunque es necesaria más investigación. Se discuten las futuras líneas de investigación.

show abstract

“…We searched the literature for empirical studies testing the VA. We used the following inclusion criteria: (1) interviews involving one interviewee (rather than pairs of interviewees, see Leal et al, 2018; Nahari & Vrij, 2014; Vernham et al, 2020), (2) the veracity (truth telling vs. lying) of the statements is manipulated either between-subjects (i.e., interviewees either lied or told the truth) or within-subjects (i.e., interviewees both lied and told the truth during the interview), (3) studies including the frequency of verifiable details and/or the ratio verifiable/total details and the frequency of unverifiable details 1 , (4) studies that are based on a single interview (rather than repeated interviews), (5) studies in which the transcripts of interviews are coded manually following Nahari’s et al (2014a) original working definition of verifiable details (rather than the source of verifiable details; e.g., Leal et al, 2018; Vrij et al, 2019; Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Fisher, 2020), (6) articles are written in English, and (7) articles are published in peer-reviewed journals. The decision whether or not to include grey literature in a meta-analysis is controversial (Bellefontaine and Lee, 2013) as both choices have advantages and disadvantages (Benzies, Premji, Hayden, & Serrett, 2006).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The verifiability approach: A meta-analysis.

Palena¹,

Caso²,

Vrij³

et al. 2021

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Verifiability Approach (VA) is a verbal veracity tool that assumes that truth tellers provide more details that can be verified and obtain a higher ratio of such details (verifiable details/total details) than liars. A VA meta-analysis was conducted. Results showed that truth tellers reported more verifiable details than liars (k = 20, N = 1532, g = 0.42). The effect was moderated by the presence of the information protocol and by the nature of the statement (event-related or not). Truth tellers reported a higher ratio of verifiable details than liars (k = 18, N = 1359, g = 0.49). The effect was moderated by the medium through which the statement was provided. Unverifiable details did not discriminate truth tellers from liars (k = 15, N = 957, g = −0.25). In conclusion, results showed good potential for the use the VA, although replications and field studies are needed.

show abstract

Combining Verbal Veracity Assessment Techniques to Distinguish Truth Tellers from Lie Tellers

Cited by 30 publications

References 51 publications

Mapping Details to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit: The Effects of Map Richness1

Mapping Details to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit: The Effects of Map Richness1

The Relationship between Complications, Common Knowledge Details and Self-handicapping Strategies and Veracity: A Meta-analysis

The verifiability approach: A meta-analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About