Veracity Judgments Research Articles

Improving Professional Observers’ Veracity Judgements by Tactical Interviewing

Understanding whether a person of interest is being truthful during an investigative interview is a constant challenge and is of concern to numerous criminal justice professionals, most of whom are not involved in conducting the interview itself. Here, we investigated police observers’ veracity detection performance having viewed interviews with truthtellers and deceivers using either the tactical use of evidence (TUE), strategic use of evidence (SUE) or a control technique. Thirty serving police officers participated as post-interview observers and each viewed 12 interviews in a counterbalanced order. After each interview, the officer made a veracity judgement. Overall, untrained police observers were significantly more accurate (68%) when making veracity judgements post-TUE interviews, whereas for both SUE and control performance was around chance (51% and 48%, respectively). Veracity performance for liars and truthtellers revealed a similar pattern of results (67% liars; 70% truthtellers) in the TUE condition. These results lend further support to the psychological literature highlighting the importance of how and when to reveal evidence or any other relevant event information during an investigative interview for ‘outing’ deceivers as well as allowing truthtellers early opportunities to demonstrate their innocence.

A within-statement baseline comparison for detecting lies

To make veracity judgements in individual cases, practitioners may rely on baselining. That is, they may evaluate a statement relative to a baseline statement that is known to be truthful. We investigated whether a within-statement verbal baseline comparison could enhance discriminatory accuracy. Participants (n = 148) read an alibi statement of a mock suspect and provided a veracity judgement regarding a critical two-hour period within the alibi statement. This critical element was either deceptive or truthful and was embedded into an otherwise truthful story. Half of the participants received additional instructions to use the surrounding truthful elements of the statement as a baseline. Instructing participants to make a within-statement baseline comparison did not improve the accuracy of credibility assessments.

Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: A lens model examination of consistency and deception

SummaryResearch has attempted to explain perceived cues to deception based upon self‐report of what participants believe are ‘good’ cues to deception, or self‐report of what cues participants say they base their veracity judgements on. However, it is not clear to what extent participants can accurately self‐report what influences their decision‐making. Using a within‐subjects design, 285 participants completed a questionnaire regarding their beliefs about deception before rating a selection of truthful and deceptive statements on a variety of cues. Expert coders also rated the statements for the same cues. Laypeople and expert coders do not conceptualise between‐subject consistency in the same way. A lens model showed that whilst perceptions of cues, such as consistency and amount of detail, influence veracity judgements, these perceptions (and overall veracity judgements) are mostly inaccurate. Fundamentally, there seems to be inconsistencies between how deception research examines consistency and how it is understood and used by laypeople.

Why don't you believe me? Detecting deception in messages written by nonnative and native speakers

SummaryDetecting lies is crucial in numerous contexts, including situations in which individuals do not interact in their native language. Previous research suggests that individuals are perceived as less credible when they communicate in a nonnative compared with native language. The current study was the first to test this effect in truthful and fabricated messages written by native and nonnative English speakers. One hundred native English speakers judged the veracity of these messages, and overall, they proved less likely to believe and to correctly classify nonnative speakers' messages; differences in verbal cues between native and nonnative speakers' messages partly explained the differences in the judgments. Given the increased use of nonnative languages in a globalized world, the discrimination against nonnative speakers in veracity judgments is problematic. Further research should more thoroughly investigate the role of verbal cues in written and spoken nonnative language to enable the development of effective interventions.

A test of the micro‐expressions training tool: Does it improve lie detection?

AbstractThe purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of the micro‐expressions training tool (METT) in identifying and using micro‐expressions to improve lie detection. Participants (n = 90) were randomly assigned to receive training in micro‐expressions recognition, a bogus control training, or no training. All participants made veracity judgements of five randomly selected videos of targets providing deceptive or truthful statements. With the use of the Bayesian analyses, we found that the METT group did not outperform those in the bogus training and no training groups. Further, overall accuracy was slightly below chance. Implications of these results are discussed.

When and Why Being Ostracized Affects Veracity Judgments.

Ostracism-being ignored and excluded by others-is a ubiquitous experience with adverse effects on well-being. To prevent further exclusion and regain belonging, ostracized individuals are well advised to identify affiliation partners who are sincerely well-disposed. Humans' ability to detect lies, however, is generally not very high. Yet, veracity judgments can become more accurate with decreasing reliance on common stereotypic beliefs about the nonverbal behavior of liars and truth-tellers. We hypothesize that ostracized (vs. included) individuals base their veracity judgments less on such stereotypical nonverbal cues if message content is affiliation-relevant. In line with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 shows that ostracized (vs. included) individuals are better at discriminating affiliation-relevant lies from truths. Experiments 2 and 3 further show that ostracized (vs. included) individuals base their veracity judgments less on stereotypical nonverbal cues if messages are of high (but not low) affiliation relevance.

Appraisal in history

This article explores issues in applying Martin and White's (2005) Appraisal framework to historical discourse. It outlines several modifications to the existing set of Appraisal tools to account for the following key evaluative aspects of history texts: (1) significance (2) fortune and (3) status. Resources for construing Significance (Salience, Depth (of Impact), Quantity and Distribution) are located in the Appreciation region of the Attitude network. A high/low parameter is proposed to account for how significance is scaled in terms of degree. Resources for construing Fortune and Status are located in the Judgment framework as subcategories of 'Normality'. A 'cline of contentiousness' through the subcategories of Judgment is proposed to account for the gradation of contentiousness from the comparatively low-stakes evaluations of Fortune and Status to the highest-stakes judgments of Veracity and Propriety. Proposed revisions to the Appraisal framework are discussed in connection with key concepts in the literature of historiography.

Unanticipated questions can yield unanticipated outcomes in investigative interviews.

Asking unanticipated questions in investigative interviews can elicit differences in the verbal behaviour of truth-tellers and liars: When faced with unanticipated questions, liars give less detailed and consistent responses than truth-tellers. Do such differences in verbal behaviour lead to an improvement in the accuracy of interviewers’ veracity judgements? Two empirical studies evaluated the efficacy of the unanticipated questions technique. Experiment 1 compared two types of unanticipated questions (questions regarding the planning of a task and questions regarding the specific spatial and temporal details associated with the task), assessing the veracity judgements of interviewers and verbal content of interviewees’ responses. Experiment 2 assessed veracity judgements of independent observers. Overall, the results provide little support for the technique. For interviewers, unanticipated questions failed to improve veracity judgement accuracy above chance. Reality monitoring analysis revealed qualitatively distinct information in the responses to the two unanticipated question types, though little distinction between the responses of truth-tellers and liars. Accuracy for observers was greater when judging transcripts of unanticipated questions, and this effect was stronger for spatial and temporal questions than planning questions. The benefits of unanticipated questioning appear limited to post-interview situations. Furthermore, the type of unanticipated question affects both the type of information gathered and the ability to detect deceit.

Perceptions of recovered memory therapy: Hindsight bias effects on judgments of memory veracity and therapist competence and responsibility.

Perceptions of recovered memory therapy: Hindsight bias effects on judgments of memory veracity and therapist competence and responsibility.

Examining police officers' response bias in judging veracity.

Deception detection research has shown that, in judging veracity, police officers are less truth biased than non-officers. However, previous researchers have normally used videotaped statements where an unknown (but presumably large) number of stereotypical or real deception cues are displayed by the senders. We examined non-officers, novice officers, and experienced officers’ response tendencies in a more controlled situation where cue availability was severely restricted. We used written vignettes describing either police-related or police-unrelated scenarios where the protagonist denied having committed a misdeed. Each vignette contained only two pieces of relevant information, one suggesting that the protagonist was lying and one suggesting that she or he was telling the truth. Officers made fewer truth judgments than non-officers in judging police-relevant vignettes, but not in judging police-irrelevant vignettes. Both novice and experienced officers had greater judgmental confidence than non-officers. The findings are consistent with the Adaptive Lie Detection Theory (ALIED). Future research should continue to explore how the police relevance of the situation or task at hand influences novice and experienced officers’ veracity judgments.

The Dark Triad and the PID-5 Maladaptive Personality Traits: Accuracy, Confidence and Response Bias in Judgments of Veracity.

The Dark Triad traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy—have been found to be associated with intra- or interpersonal deception production frequency. This cross-sectional study (N = 207) investigated if the Dark Triad traits are also associated with deception detection accuracy, as implicated by the recent conception of a deception-general ability. To investigate associations between maladaptive personality space and deception, the PID-5 maladaptive personality traits were included to investigate if besides Machiavellianism, Detachment is negatively associated with response bias. Finally, associations between the Dark Triad traits, Antagonism, Negative Affectivity and confidence judgments were investigated. Participants watched videos of lying vs. truth-telling senders and judged the truthfulness of the statements. None of the Dark Triad traits was found to be associated with the ability to detect deception. Detachment was negatively associated with response bias. Psychopathy was associated with global confidence judgments. The results provide additional support that dark and maladaptive personality traits are associated with judgmental biases but not with accuracy in deception detection. The internal consistencies of 4 of the 8 subscales of the used personality short scales were only low and nearly sufficient (αs =0.65–0.69).

Don’t stop believing: the relative impact of internal alibi details on judgments of veracity

ABSTRACTThe relative impact of five alibi components on the assessment of alibi veracity was investigated using a policy-capturing methodology. Participants (N = 115) were instructed to assume the role of a homicide investigator and evaluate 32 alibis that varied on five dichotomous variables: Salaciousness; Legality; Change in Details; Superfluous Details; and Specific Details. Participants evaluated the believability of each alibi, and the likelihood of the alibi provider’s guilt. Results indicated that participants tended to disbelieve suspects when illegal or salacious behaviours were mentioned within the alibi. Few decision policies contained Change in Details, Superfluous Details, or Specific Details. The potential implications for alibi assessments during police investigations are discussed.

To Veil or Not to Veil: Detecting Lies in The Courtroom. A Comment on Leach et al. (2016)

For the past 40 years, lie detection has predominantly been studied in the context of police-suspect and investigative interviews. In their paper, Leach et al. (2016) examined whether niqabs or hijabs interfere with the trial judges’ ability to detect deception and concluded that veiling enhanced trial judges’ ability to make accurate veracity judgments. In this comment, we argue that the conclusions made by Leach et al. are based upon an inaccurate experimental court paradigm and suffer from methodological and analytical issues. It is our opinion that the applicability of their research findings to real-life court proceedings alongside potential changes to court practices and policies based on Leach et al. should be regarded as naïve and misinformed.

Experienced and novice officers' generalized communication suspicion and veracity judgments.

Deception detection research has shown that police officers are less truth-biased and make their veracity judgments with greater confidence than do nonofficers. Here we examined nonofficers, novice officers, and experienced officers' response bias, confidence, and generalized communicative suspicion. In Experiment 1, novice officers aligned with nonofficers in terms of both generalized communicative suspicion scores and confidence, with both these groups scoring lower than experienced officers. Generalized communicative suspicion scores and veracity judgments were not significantly related for either sample. However, novice officers aligned with experienced officers in terms of judgments: both police groups were lie-biased, whereas nonofficers were truth-biased. These findings suggest that unlike experienced officers, who have embraced the police culture to a greater degree, novice officers are not dispositionally suspicious (generalized communicative suspicion); however, they are able to mirror the prototypical police behavior (deception judgments) in police-related contexts. Experiment 2 supported these notions.

Can parents detect 8- to 16-year-olds’ lies? Parental biases, confidence, and accuracy

Honesty is a crucial aspect of a trusting parent–child relationship. Given that close relationships often impair our ability to detect lies and are related to a truth bias, parents may have difficulty with detecting their own children’s lies. The current investigation examined the lie detection abilities (accuracy, biases, and confidence) of three groups of participants: non-parent group (undergraduates), parent–other group (parents who evaluated other peoples' children’s statements), and parent–own group (parents who evaluated their own children’s statements). Participants were presented with videos of 8- to 16-year-olds telling either the truth or a lie about having peeked at the answers to a test and were asked to evaluate the veracity of the statement along with their confidence in their judgment. All groups performed at chance in the accuracy of their veracity judgments. Furthermore, although all groups tended to hold a truth bias for 8- to 16-year-olds, the parent–own group held a much stronger truth bias than the other two groups. All groups were also highly confident in their judgments (70%–76%), but confidence ratings failed to predict accuracy. These findings, taken together, suggest that the close relationship that parents share with their own children may be related to a bias toward believing their children’s statements and, hence, a failure to detect their lies.

Teenage Offenders' Ability to Detect Deception in Their Peers

SummaryThis study investigated the deception detection abilities of teenage offenders and teenage non‐offenders who made veracity judgments about 12 videotaped interviewees and also explored the behavioural characteristics of teenage liars and truth tellers. The findings revealed that teenage offenders were significantly more accurate in their credibility judgments than teenage non‐offenders. However, the offenders' impressive accuracy rates were not as a consequence of using valid cues to deceit. The feedback hypothesis helps to explain why the offenders were more accurate in their decisions: Operating within a criminal environment may mean that teenage offenders frequently lie and are lied to. Consequently, they receive more feedback than non‐offenders regarding the effectiveness of their lies as well as how successful they are at detecting lies. As a result, their lie detection ability improves. The current study suggests moving away from individual deceptive cues as predictors of deceit towards a more intuitive and holistic approach to lie detection, such as the Brunswikian Lens Model.Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Increasing skepticism toward potential liars: effects of existential threat on veracity judgments and the moderating role of honesty norm activation.

With the present research, we investigated effects of existential threat on veracity judgments. According to several meta-analyses, people judge potentially deceptive messages of other people as true rather than as false (so-called truth bias). This judgmental bias has been shown to depend on how people weigh the error of judging a true message as a lie (error 1) and the error of judging a lie as a true message (error 2). The weight of these errors has been further shown to be affected by situational variables. Given that research on terror management theory has found evidence that mortality salience (MS) increases the sensitivity toward the compliance of cultural norms, especially when they are of focal attention, we assumed that when the honesty norm is activated, MS affects judgmental error weighing and, consequently, judgmental biases. Specifically, activating the norm of honesty should decrease the weight of error 1 (the error of judging a true message as a lie) and increase the weight of error 2 (the error of judging a lie as a true message) when mortality is salient. In a first study, we found initial evidence for this assumption. Furthermore, the change in error weighing should reduce the truth bias, automatically resulting in better detection accuracy of actual lies and worse accuracy of actual true statements. In two further studies, we manipulated MS and honesty norm activation before participants judged several videos containing actual truths or lies. Results revealed evidence for our prediction. Moreover, in Study 3, the truth bias was increased after MS when group solidarity was previously emphasized.

Train the Trainers: A First Step towards a Science‐Based Cognitive Lie Detection Training Workshop Delivered by a Practitioner

AbstractA training workshop utilising recent research in cognitive lie detection was designed and evaluated. A unique future of the training was that a practitioner (retired police detective) instead of scientists (e.g. the training developers) introduced the techniques. To evaluate the training, 27 experienced police detectives each interviewed one mock suspect (a truth teller or liar) before training, and another group of 23 experienced police detectives interviewed one mock suspect (a truth teller or liar) after training. The police detectives were free to interview the mock suspect in any way they felt appropriate, but those who had received training were asked to try to incorporate (some of) the taught techniques in their interviews. The detectives made veracity judgements, and the interviews were transcribed and coded for the amount of detail elicited and the questions asked. Training had a modest effect on the ability to distinguish between truths and lies but resulted in a higher percentage of appropriate questions asked. Trainees did not implement the taught techniques to an equal extent, but when they did, the techniques enhanced the elicitation of information. The training study also revealed challenges, particularly difficulty in implementing the taught techniques into practice and asking the right questions to elicit differences in detail between truth tellers and liars. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Unconscious deception detection measured by finger skin temperature and indirect veracity judgments-results of a registered report.

A pre-registered experiment was conducted to examine psychophysiological responses to being lied to. Bridging research on social cognition and deception detection, we hypothesized that observing a liar compared to a truth-teller would decrease finger skin temperature of observers. Participants first watched two targets while not forewarned that they would later be asked to judge (direct and indirect) veracity, and then watched another two targets while forewarned about this. During both these phases finger skin temperature was measured. Findings pertaining to temperature partly confirmed our main hypothesis. When participants were observing a liar, irrespective of being forewarned, on average finger skin temperature declined over time. In the forewarned phase, temperature trajectories of truth-tellers were higher than those of liars, however, in the not forewarned phase, this pattern was reversed. Results confirmed our further hypotheses that participants judge liars as less likeable and less trustworthy than truth-tellers—an indication of indirect deception detection. Our hypothesis that the effect size for trustworthiness would be bigger than that of liking was not supported by the data. Additionally, and also confirming our hypothesis, participants performed around chance level when directly judging whether the target person was lying. Exploratory analyses are reported with regard to truth bias and dependency between direct and indirect veracity judgments. Limitations and directions for future work related to the existence of psychophysiological indicators of deception detection are discussed.

Translating theory into practice: Evaluating a cognitive lie detection training workshop

A training workshop utilising the most up to date research in cognitive lie detection was designed and evaluated. For this evaluation, 27 experienced police detectives each interviewed one mock-suspect (a truth teller or liar) before training and another mock-suspect (a truth teller or liar) after training. Different mock-crimes were used in the pre- and post training interviews. The police detectives were free to interview the mock-suspect in any way they felt appropriate but were asked to try to incorporate (some of) the taught techniques in the post-training interviews. The detectives made veracity judgements and the interviews were transcribed and coded for the amount of detail elicited and the questions asked. Trainees’ ability to distinguish truth tellers from liars improved, and so did the percentage of appropriate questions they asked. Trainees did not implement the taught techniques to an equal extent, but when they were used, the techniques enhanced the elicitation of information and discrimination between truth tellers and liars. The training study also revealed challenges, particularly difficulty in implementing the taught techniques into practice (detectives often thought they had used techniques taught in the training when they in fact not used them as they had been shown to do) and asking the right questions to elicit differences in detail between truth tellers and liars.