Verifiability Approach Research Articles

Discriminating Deceptive From Truthful Statements Using the Verifiability Approach

When considering suspect statements, truthful statements contain more verifiable details compared to deceptive statements, supporting a core prediction of the Verifiability Approach (VA) to lie detection. However, this difference of verifiable details between truthful and deceptive statements is not always found. For example, the difference emerges for alibi statements, but not for other types of statements, such as statements related to insurance claims. While the VA appears to be a useful tool for detecting lying in laboratory-based studies, the effectiveness of the VA in real-world policing contexts remains unknown.

Verbal Lie Detection: Its Past, Present and Future.

This article provides an overview of verbal lie detection research. This type of research began in the 1970s with examining the relationship between deception and specific words. We briefly review this initial research. In the late 1980s, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) emerged, a veracity assessment tool containing a list of verbal criteria. This was followed by Reality Monitoring (RM) and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), two other veracity assessment tools that contain lists of verbal criteria. We discuss their contents, theoretical rationales, and ability to identify truths and lies. We also discuss similarities and differences between CBCA, RM, and SCAN. In the mid 2000s, 'Interviewing to deception' emerged, with the goal of developing specific interview protocols aimed at enhancing or eliciting verbal veracity cues. We outline the four most widely researched interview protocols to date: the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), Verifiability Approach (VA), Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA), and Reality Interviewing (RI). We briefly discuss the working of these protocols, their theoretical rationales and empirical support, as well as the similarities and differences between them. We conclude this article with elaborating on how neuroscientists can inform and improve verbal lie detection.

Lies divorced from context: evidence for Context Embedded Perception (CEP) as a feasible measure for deception detection

ABSTRACT This study examined the efficacy of a novel measure for lie detection—Context Embedded Perception (CEP). CEP exploits a qualitative difference between the functional roles of provided perceptual and contextual details: By framing the perceptual details in time and space, or by annotating them semantically, the contextual details are those that confer upon the perceptual details the status of verifiability. Consequently, expanding on the tenets of the Verifiability Approach (VA), liars, who are generally motivated to adopt an ‘unverifiable-information’ reporting strategy, should also tend to avoid such contextualization. The proportion of contextual details can then be used to differentiate deceptive from truthful accounts. Participants provided deceptive or truthful accounts during a mock-crime interview; Half were warned beforehand about an upcoming verification procedure and ratification interview. For each account, the CEP measure was calculated as the proportion of contextual details out of contextual and perceptual details combined. As predicted, CEP scores were significantly lower for liars than for truthtellers; warning condition had no effect. A CEP-based discriminant function correctly identified 92% of the truthtellers and 66% of the liars, resulting in 79% total classification accuracy. CEP’s theoretical and practical strengths and weaknesses, specifically in relation to sources of verifiability, are discussed.

Dull versus creative liars—Who deceives better? Fantasy proneness and verifiability of genuine and fabricated accounts

AbstractThe Verifiability Approach (VA), a lie detection method, postulates that genuine statements contain more verifiable information, whereas fabricated reports include more non‐verifiable details. We investigated whether participants low (n = 19), medium (n = 23) and high (n = 26) on fantasy proneness differ in the (non)verifiability of their genuine and fabricated accounts. The results showed that groups did not differ in terms of statements' (non)verifiability. Overall, fabricated accounts included more non‐verifiable details, but did not differ in verifiable details from genuine stories. The fabricated accounts from each group were given to legal psychology experts (N = 13) who rated accounts' authenticity. Experts more often recognised false accounts from the high fantasy proneness group, hence, high fantasy prone deceivers might be easier to detect than people with lower fantasy engagement. Overall, our results show that the VA is not sensitive to fantasy proneness, however, that experts might be.

Verifiability and Symptom Endorsement in Genuine, Exaggerated, and Malingered Pain

The current study has investigated whether pure malingering, in which reported symptoms are nonexistent, partial malingering, in which existent symptoms are exaggerated, and genuine symptoms could be differentiated by applying the verifiability approach (VA) and the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI). The logic behind the VA is that deceivers’ statements contain more non-verifiable information, whereas truth tellers’ accounts include more verifiable details. The SRSI taps into over-reporting by including a mix of genuine symptoms and implausible complaints (pseudosymptoms). We checked if participants (N = 167) allocated to one of three conditions (pure malingerers vs. exaggerators vs. truth tellers) can be differentiated in their pain symptom reports’ (non)verifiability and symptom endorsement. Findings revealed that deceptive reports were lengthier than truthful statements. However, this difference was not produced by a discrepancy in non-verifiable details, but rather by a higher production of verifiable information among malingerers and exaggerators. Thus, contrary to previous findings, our results indicate that pain reports rich in verifiable information should raise doubt about their veracity. Further, truth tellers endorsed less symptoms of the SRSI than exaggerators, but not than pure malingerers. Pure malingerers and exaggerators did not differ in symptom endorsement. Thus, our findings revealed that when compared with truth tellers, exaggerators exhibited stronger over-reporting tendencies than (pure) malingerers. However, due to inconsistent findings, further investigation of the efficacy of these methods in differentiation between exaggerated and malingered reports is required.

Fading lies: applying the verifiability approach after a period of delay

ABSTRACT We tested the utility of applying the Verifiability Approach (VA) to witness statements after a period of delay. The delay factor is important to consider because interviewees are often not interviewed directly after witnessing an event. A total of 64 liars partook in a mock crime and then lied about it during an interview, seven days later. Truth tellers (n = 78) partook in activities of their own choosing and told the truth about it during their interview, seven days later. All participants were split into three groups, which provided three different verbal instructions relating to the interviewer’s aim to assess the statements for the inclusion of verifiable information: no information protocol (IP) (n = 43), the standard-IP (n = 46) and an enhanced-IP (n = 53). In addition to the standard VA approach of analysing verifiable details, we further examined verifiable witness information and verifiable digital information and made a distinction between verifiable details and verifiable sources. We found that truth tellers reported more verifiable digital details and sources than liars.

Verify the scene, report the symptoms: Testing the Verifiability Approach and SRSI in the detection of fabricated PTSD claims

PurposeIn order to effectively feign post‐traumatic stress disorder, a person needs to confabulate an exposure narrative and to fabricate symptoms of high distress. The Verifiability Approach (VA) is a lie‐detection method based on the notion that truth tellers’ narratives include more verifiable (checkable) information than liars’ narratives. The Self‐Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) is a measure of over‐reporting, and it includes genuine symptoms and pseudosymptoms that are likely to be endorsed in fabricated symptom reports. In this study, we examined whether the VA can help discriminate the fabricated exposure narratives, and whether the SRSI can aid screening for symptom over‐reporting.MethodOne group of participants (truth tellers) witnessed a vehicle crash scene using the Virtual Reality paradigm (n = 22), while the other group (feigners) was instructed to fabricate such an experience (n = 46). All the participants wrote the exposure narratives and completed the SRSI.ResultsFeigners produced non‐verifiable (vague) and lengthier narratives than truth tellers, who reported a higher proportion of checkable information. Regarding the symptom reports, feigners endorsed more of trauma‐related genuine symptoms and pseudosymptoms than truth tellers.ConclusionThe non‐verifiable details and the proportion of verifiable details, together with the SRSI subscales, can assist explaining the reporting strategies of those feigning negative exposures.

Extending the verifiability approach framework: The effect of initial questioning

SummaryThe verifiability approach (VA) is a lie‐detection tool that examines reported checkable details. Across two studies, we attempt to exploit liar's preferred strategy of repeating information by examining the effect of questioning adult interviewees before the VA. In Study 1, truth tellers (n = 34) and liars (n = 33) were randomly assigned to either an initial open or closed questioning condition. After initial questioning, participants were interviewed using the VA. In Study 2, truth tellers (n = 48) and liars (n = 48) were interviewed twice, with half of each veracity group randomly assigned to either the Information Protocol (an instruction describing the importance of reporting verifiable details) or control condition. Only truth tellers revised their initial statement to include verifiable detail. This pattern was most pronounced when initial questioning was open (Study 1) and when the information protocol was employed (Study 2). Thus, liar's preferred strategy of maintaining consistency between statements appears exploitable using the VA.

Applying the Verifiability Approach in an international airport setting

ABSTRACTIn the current study, we tested the utility of applying the Verifiability Approach (VA) within an international airport setting. The VA works on the notion that truth tellers provide more verifiable details than liars and has shown to be successful within other empirical deception detection scenarios. Three hundred and ninety-nine airside participants (those originating from Europe, Asia and African) were asked questions regarding their travel plans. We asked participants to either lie (n = 195) or tell the truth (n = 204) about their planned activities. The critical question required participants to provide information that would convince the investigator that they were telling the truth. We then transcribed and coded their responses for verifiable details; that is, details that could potentially be checked by an investigator. Overall, truth tellers provided significantly more verifiable details than liars. Furthermore, when taking their geographical origin into account, there was no interaction effect between veracity and region. Additionally, truth tellers provided a higher verifiable/total detail ratio than liars, which again showed no interaction effect between veracity and region. These findings support the suitability of the VA as a cross-cultural veracity tool and implications for its use as an additional security aid are discussed.

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.

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

PurposeLie 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.MethodThe 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.ResultsBoth 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%.ConclusionThe VA, including the information protocol, can be used in insurance settings.