Lie Detection Tools Research Articles

“Tell me about your trip”: Introducing the enhanced ghostwriter lie detection tool.

“Tell me about your trip”: Introducing the enhanced ghostwriter lie detection tool.

EEG signals classification using a new radial basis function neural network and jellyfish meta-heuristic algorithm.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12065-022-00802-2.

Sketching routes to elicit information and cues to deceit

AbstractSketching while narrating involves describing an event while sketching on a blank paper (self‐generated sketch) or on a printed map. We compared the effects of self‐generated sketches and printed maps on information elicitation and lie detection. Participants (N = 211) carried out a mock mission and were instructed to tell the truth or to lie about it in an online interview. In the first phase of the interview, all participants provided a free recall. In the second phase, participants provided another free recall or verbally described the mission while sketching on a blank paper or on a printed map. Truth tellers provided richer accounts than lie tellers. Larger effect sizes emerged for the self‐generated sketch condition than for the printed map and free recall conditions. This suggests that self‐generated sketches are more effective lie detection tools when information on routes and locations is sought.

The cognitive interview for suspects: A test with customs officers

AbstractThe current study aimed at testing the impact of the cognitive interview for suspects (CIS) used by trained custom officers on the quantity of gathered details, compared to a control standard interview (SI) used by untrained officers. Forty‐five mock‐suspects were required to perform a series of actions and each was interviewed by a pair of customs officers. Participants had to give statements containing truthful parts and deceptive parts. The CIS elicited significantly more details than the SI. Truthful parts of the statements contained more details than deceptive parts. An interaction effect revealed that the CIS elicited a higher number of action details in truthful parts. It is worthwhile for professionals in the field to adopt the CIS, which provides valuable benefits for information gathering. Moreover, the increase in action details raise the question of considering it as a possible lie detection tool.

When Brain Tells the Deception: A Literature Review on Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling

Deception is all around us and lies are the basic form of deception. Deception ranges from the innocent lies of kids to terror-creating community lies. Deception is a common aspect of planet life. Deception can save a life from predators, for winning a mate, in securing meals, and to combat competitors. Deception is part of biological life. Deception can be found in birds, animals, and microbes. But, in humans, deception is not a part of biological activities. Human deception can be for survival or for escaping from the punishment of wrongdoing of them. Anyway, human deception is a trending topic in the science world. There are various techniques in the forensic psychology field to detect human deception. Polygraph, layered voice analyser, forensic Narcoanalysis, and brain electrical oscillation signature profiling, brain fingerprinting are the major deception detection techniques. This review article focuses on the theoretical perspectives and background of Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling. BEOS is an Indian lie detection tool, developed by Dr. C.R. Mukundan. BEOS is working on the principle of Autobiographical memory and semantic memory.

Cues for feigning screening in whiplash associated disorders.

The objective of this work is to evaluate the ability of a series of possible feigning indicators, extracted from relevant literature in the field, to discriminate between clinical patients with genuine symptomatology and instructed malingerers. A sample of 273 participants divided into two groups was used for this study: 153 whiplash associated disorder patients who were evaluated at a multidisciplinary medical center in the region of Murcia (Spain), between December 2017 and March 2019 and 120 healthy controls with malingering instructions, students of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Murcia. In order for researchers to evaluate the indicators included in the study, a 22-step checklist (CDS) was developed, consisting of 22 criteria divided into 5 dimensions. Our results show that 18 of 22 indicators could discriminate between groups. Dimension 2 "Attitude toward the situation of illness" presented the greatest capacity for discrimination. In general terms, malingerers express a much more negative experience of the condition than the clinical patients.

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

Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA) is a verbal lie detection tool consisting of several interview techniques. These techniques have been examined separately but never together. Reflecting the dynamic nature of CCA we combined several of the techniques (free recall followed by a model statement, followed by a reverse order instruction, and followed by a sketch instruction). We examined the new information provided after each stage of the interview and also compared the information provided in the initial recall with the information provided after the entire interview. A total of 47 truth tellers and 47 lie tellers went on a mission. Truth tellers were asked to report their mission truthfully, whereas lie tellers were requested to lie about several aspects of the mission. We measured the total units of information (total details) provided in the interview and the number of complications reported. The results indicate that the pre-registered hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) was supported for complications. Truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers in each stage of the interview and the difference was more pronounced after the entire interview than after the free recall. As a conclusion, CCA was an effective lie detection method when complications were taken into account.

Do Lie Detection Tools Really Catch Liars?

Lying is ubiquitous in every society. However, in forensic contexts lies must be revealed so that investigations/judgments can be fair and effective. For this reason, distinct tools (verbal and nonverbal) of lie detection were examined. CBCA and RM showed the best performance in distinguishing between truth and lie within verbal tools. Lack of empirical support made SCAN not recommended for lie detection applications. Moreover, studies have shown that people guided by BAI are less accurate in detecting lies than untrained people. Ekman’s Deception Theory (EDT) showed more effective predictions about nonverbal deception cues than BAI. However, the lack of standardization in the use of EDT predictions to detect lies can be seen as a weakness of the method. Future efforts may be aimed at developing a tool that uses both verbal and nonverbal predictions to obtain greater accuracy in detecting lies than currently available methods.

Sketching while narrating as a tool to detect deceit

SummaryIn none of the deception studies that used drawings to date, was the effect of sketching on both speech content and drawing content examined, making it unclear what the full potential is of the use of drawings as a lie detection tool. A total of 122 truth tellers and liars took part in the study who did or did not sketch while narrating their allegedly experienced event. We formulated hypotheses about the total amount of information and number of complications reported and about various features of the drawings. Participants in the Sketch‐present condition provided more information than participants in the Sketch‐absent condition, and truth tellers reported more details than liars, but only in the Sketch‐present condition. In contrast to previous research, no Veracity differences occurred regarding the content of the drawings, perhaps because sketching was introduced as a tool that facilitated verbal recall and not as a stand‐alone tool.

Proportion of complications in interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews

Recently, researchers have started searching for combinations of verbal cues to deceit and verbal cues to truth. The proportion of complications (complications divided by complications plus common knowledge details plus self-handicapping strategies) is an example of such a combination, as it includes one verbal cue of truth (complications) and two verbal cues of deceit (common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies). This study examines whether or not complications, common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies and the proportion of complications can differentiate truth-tellers from liars in interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews. Both interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews take place frequently, and it is important to know whether or not any given lie detection tool works in both interview settings. For this purpose, three data sets were obtained and the data were aggregated. All four variables were found to differentiate truth-tellers from liars to a similar extent in both interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

Using the Model Statement Technique as a Lie Detection Tool: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

Using the Model Statement Technique as a Lie Detection Tool: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

Complications travel: A cross‐cultural comparison of the proportion of complications as a verbal cue to deceit

AbstractVerbal lie detection tools are almost exclusively examined in Western Europe and North America, but practitioners worldwide show interest in such tools. Because cultural differences in the efficacy of such tools may occur, it is important to examine their efficacy in different cultures. In this article, we focus on proportion of complications, which in previous research was more diagnostic than “total details” in two British samples and in three samples that each included Hispanic, Russian, and South Korean participants. In the present article, we merged the three non‐British samples and analysed the data by presenting them for each cultural group separately. Truth tellers disclosed the details of a trip away they had made, whereas liars fabricated such details. Proportion of complications discriminated truth tellers from liars in all three groups and was consistently a better indicator of veracity than total details. Implications of the findings are discussed.

The interaction of truthful and deceptive information

ABSTRACT Research consistently shows that truthful accounts are richer in detail than deceptive accounts. It is unknown, however, how interviewees strategically regulate the information they provide when their accounts contain both truthful and deceptive information. This study examined how truths and lies interact, and whether interviewees’ self-reported strategies reflect such interactions. Participants (n = 144) provided one statement consisting of two elements. We manipulated the veracity of these elements, with participants allocated to either both truthful, both deceptive, or one truthful and the other deceptive conditions. Results indicated that interviewees calibrate the richness of detail provided in the first element of their statement based on the veracity of the following element. Moreover, our exploratory tests revealed that lies become more detailed when they are flanked by truthful information relative to when they are flanked by other deceptive information. The finding that truthful and deceptive information interacts to influence detail richness provides insight into liars’ strategic manipulation of information when statements contain a mixture of truths and lies. Strategic manipulations of this kind could potentially threaten the reliability of commonly used verbal lie detection tools. This study also offers insight to legal practitioners who rely on baseline deviations to assess credibility.

Testing the applied potential of the Sheffield Lie Test

The Sheffield Lie Test (SLT) has been frequently used in laboratory research investigating basic mechanisms of deception. Its applied potential as a lie detection tool has been contested. The current two experiments used a reaction time SLT and investigated whether it can discriminate between participants who committed a mock crime and participants who performed an everyday activity. Results of the first experiment revealed that guilty participants (n = 32) took longer and committed more errors when having to deceptively deny the mock crime and deceptively confirm having performed the everyday activity in contrast to truthfully admitting the mock crime and denying the everyday activity. Innocent participants (n = 29) showed the reversed pattern. Individual Cohen's d's and the area under the ROC curve revealed a high above chance discrimination between both groups. In a second experiment, we repeated this procedure, yet participants were now given a more elaborate explanation of the alibi activity that all should pretend to have done. Although results still revealed the expected pattern in innocent participants (n = 48), the effect was not significant any more for the guilty participants (n = 46). Accordingly, classification accuracies also dropped. These two experiments demonstrate the applied potential of the SLT, yet at the same time its severe limitations. Potential solutions and suggestions for future research will be discussed.

Verbal Deception and the Model Statement as a Lie Detection Tool.

We have been reliably informed by practitioners that police officers and intelligence officers across the world have started to use the Model Statement lie detection technique. In this article we introduce this technique. We describe why it works, report the empirical evidence that it works, and outline how to use it. Research examining the Model Statement only started recently and more research is required. We give suggestions for future research with the technique. The Model Statement technique is one of many recently developed verbal lie detection methods. We start this article with a short overview of the—in our view- most promising recent developments in verbal lie detection before turning our attention to the Model Statement technique.

Insurance based lie detection: Enhancing the verifiability approach with a model statement component

PurposeThe Verifiability Approach (VA) is verbal lie detection tool that has shown promise when applied to insurance claims settings. This study examined the effectiveness of incorporating a Model Statement comprised of checkable information to the VA protocol for enhancing the verbal differences between liars and truth tellers. MethodThe study experimentally manipulated supplementing (or withholding) the VA with a Model Statement. It was hypothesised that such a manipulation would (i) encourage truth tellers to provide more verifiable details than liars and (ii) encourage liars to report more unverifiable details than truth tellers (compared to the no model statement control). As a result, it was hypothesized that (iii) the model statement would improve classificatory accuracy of the VA. Participants reported 40 genuine and 40 fabricated insurance claim statements, in which half the liars and truth tellers where provided with a model statement as part of the VA procedure, and half where provide no model statement. ResultsAll three hypotheses were supported. In terms of accuracy, the model statement increased classificatory rates by the VA considerably from 65.0% to 90.0%. ConclusionProviding interviewee’s with a model statement prime consisting of checkable detail appears to be a useful refinement to the VA procedure.

Which Lie Detection Tools are Ready for Use in the Criminal Justice System?

We introduce ‘arousal based’ lie detection tools (the Behavior Analysis Interview, the Comparison Question polygraph Test, CQT) and ‘cognition based’ lie detection tools (imposing cognitive load, encouraging interviewees to say more, asking unexpected questions, Strategic Use of Evidence, Verifiability Approach and Concealed Information polygraph Test, CIT), and discuss whether they are ready for use in investigative interviews. We developed ten criteria on which to judge their suitability. The two arousal-based techniques (frequently used) fall short on numerous criteria. There are too many problems associated with the imposing cognitive load technique, but the other cognitive techniques are ready for use (encouraging interviewees to say more and Strategic Use of Evidence) or ready for use if they continue to receive support in empirical research (asking unexpected questions and Verifiability Approach). The CIT polygraph test cannot be included in a standard investigative interview but can be useful in addition to investigative interviewing.

When the long road is the shortcut: a comparison between two coding methods for content-based lie-detection tools

ABSTRACTWhen using a content-based lie detection tool, a decision regarding veracity is made by evaluating the presence of specific content criteria within the interviewee’s account. This evaluation can be achieved either by counting the frequency of occurrence of the criteria (frequency counts; FC) or by using a scale to rate the intensity at which they appear in the entire text (scale rates; SR). In the current study, we compared these two coding methods with respect to their accuracy in determining veracity, and their intercoder and test–retest reliabilities. Fourteen coders coded the presence of perceptual and contextual details in true and false statements, each used the FC method for one set of 30 statements and the SR method for another set of 30 statements. One month later, eight of the coders recoded 28 statements. Results showed a significant advantage for the FC method over the SR method. While the coders perceived the SR method as less time-consuming than the FC method, accuracy level as well as intercoder and test–retest reliabilities were higher for the FC than for the SR method. These findings suggest that when using a content-based lie detection tool, FC coding should be preferred over SR coding.

The Deception Clues in Forensic Contexts: The Lie Detection Psychology

The psychologist and legal professional have an interest as important study of lie detection which revolves as one of the foremost areas of applied psychology. Indeed, in legal settings, police offices, and attorneys are among those make sure with the responsibility to determine clues which is important to know whether someone is lying or telling the truth in investigations, court trials, border control interviews and intelligence interviews. Therefore, psychologists and practitioners have developed various lie detection tools which cover entire possible range from observing behavior, analyzing speech, and measuring peripheral physiological responses to recording brain activity. This article will bring in the reader to the main lie detection tools and theories that underpinned to date in reference to deception.

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

The current paper describes potential systematic errors (or biases) that may appear while applying content-based lie detection tools, by focusing on richness in detail – a core indicator in verbal tools – as a test case. Two categories of biases are discussed: those related to the interviewees (i.e., interviewees with different characteristics differ in the number of details they provide when lying or telling the truth) and those related to the tool expert (i.e., tool experts with different characteristics differ in the way they perceive and interpret verbal cues). We suggested several ways to reduce the influence of these biases, and emphasized the need for future studies in this matter.