Does the truth come out in the writing? Scan as a lie detection tool.

Nahari, Galit; Vrij, Aldert; Fisher, Ronald P.

doi:10.1037/h0093965

Cited by 93 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One potentially promising avenue is a newly devised verbal lie detection method: The Verifiability Approach (Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2012). The Verifiability Approach is based on two aspects of deceptive strategies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Verifiability Approach to detection of malingered physical symptoms

Bošković

Bogaard

Vrij³

et al. 2017

Psychology, Crime & Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Verifiability Approach to detection of malingered physical symptoms

Bošković

Bogaard

Vrij³

et al. 2017

Psychology, Crime & Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This does not; however, appear to get us beyond about the fifty/fifty situation in determining when someone is lying to us. Our research, as well as that of many others [6,11,12], indicates that accuracy of deception detection can be increased when we take into account the kind of detail quantity and statement quality variables described above. Now admittedly it could be a bit awkward if you are evaluating the truthfulness of someone's proclamation of love for you by pulling out a form where you rate their statement in terms of its realism, reconstructability, relevance, spatial, temporal, contextual and perceptual information.…”

Section: Short Communicationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A great deal of research regarding deception detection reveals that one of the primary hallmarks of true statements is the presence of specific details such as the physical space in which something occurred, the time it occurred, the things and persons present when it occurred and the relationships between the different things and persons present [6,12,13]. True statements contain this kind of rich and varied detail and it is the explicit absence of such attributes of truthful statements that are so often apparent in the lies of child molesters as well as other types of liars.…”

Section: Short Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Catching Liars: Why it can be so Hard

Johnston¹

2017

J Forensic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerable research reveals that most people, including mental health and law enforcement professionals, are remarkably poor at catching liars, doing no better than chance. Our comparative inability to detect deception poses a profound threat to the reliability of forensic psychological and psychiatric evaluations of criminal defendants intended to assess such things as current mental status and future dangerousness. In forensic evaluations, where one's personal freedom, even life, can be at stake, some clients, perhaps more than some, will inevitably dissemble. This essay provides a brief and non-technical description of the research my students and we have conducted designed to better understand the reasons for which detecting deception is so difficult. In this regard, and consistent with much previous research, we discovered that in assessing the verbal content of other persons' statements, it is possible with a good degree of reliability to differentiate between true and deceptive statements of criminal defendants. We also found that the "truth" is itself a multidimensional concept and that truthful versus false statements differ with regard to both the quantity and quality of information contained in a statement. While multiple challenges exist to accurately detect deception, our data strongly suggested that it may be so difficult to catch liars because it requires more cognitive work to identify false rather than true statements. Indeed, the data indicate that determining a statement is true appears to involve a one-step cognitive process while determining a statement is false appears to involve a two-step cognitive process, whereby a false statement is recognized as lacking attributes of truthfulness while simultaneously manifesting attributes of deception. That it would be more difficult to recognize falsehoods and require more cognitive work does not seem surprising considering that the identification of a lie forces us to look below and reject the surface meaning of a statement concluding that the statement is not simply inaccurate but actually intended to deceive or mislead us. On a more positive note, even though deception is ubiquitous in human relationships and a significant number of dangerous liars will be successful, the accuracy of deception detection can be improved by the application of the findings from verbal content analysis identifying those statement attributes characteristic of truthfulness versus deception. It would seem especially important for forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to be aware of research capable of assisting them in assessing the veracity of criminal defendants participating in court-ordered evaluations.

show abstract

“…However, it is inevitable that variance in richness appears within truthful statements and within false statements. 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 standard deviations compared to the total number of words spoken (243.14 by truth tellers and 129.20 by liars). This implies that large variations exist between individuals in the way they provide truthful or false statements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Indeed, RM deception research has shown that truthful statements are typically richer than false statements, and that the RM tool distinguishes truthful from false statements at about 70% accuracy (e.g., Granhag, Strö mwall, & Landströ m, 2006;Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2012;Sporer & Sharman, 2006;Vrij, 2008). However, it is inevitable that variance in richness appears within truthful statements and within false statements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%