Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment

Research has shown that complications are more common in truth tellers' accounts than in lie tellers' accounts, but there is currently no experiment that has examined the accuracy of observers' veracity judgments when looking at complications. A total of 87 participants were asked to judge 10 transcripts (five truthful and five false) derived from a set of 59 transcripts generated in a previous experiment by Deeb et al. Approximately half of the participants were trained to detect complications (Trained), and the other half did not receive training (Untrained). Trained participants were more likely to look for complications, but they did not detect them accurately, and thus their veracity judgments did not improve beyond Untrained participants' judgments. We discuss that the training may have been too brief or not sensitive enough to enhance decision-making.

The role of individual features of memory and impulsiveness in telling a true or false story in a realistic, clear, and reconstructible way

Objective

The aim of the present study was to explore whether there was an interaction effect between such personal aspects and veracity on realism, clarity, and reconstructability of the story.

Methods

A total of 158 participants took part in the experiment and were asked to tell a truth and a lie during an interview (veracity condition). They filled in a questionnaire measuring their metamemory performance and their level of functional and dysfunctional impulsivity. A k-means cluster analysis on metamemory and impulsivity was conducted, and three clusters were obtained: controlled-memory inefficient, controlled-memory efficient, and impulsive-average memory.

Results

The results showed that participants scored higher on all three reality monitoring criteria when telling the truth than when lying. Further, a cluster membership by veracity interaction for realism was also significant, but when telling the truth, there was no difference between clusters in terms of realism used in the explanation. Follow-up analyses showed that, when lying, the level of realism in the story was significantly higher for people belonging to the cluster "impulsive-average memory" than for people belonging to the cluster "controlled-memory efficient", a result that seems to indicate that people with good memory and can control dysfunctional impulsivity have more difficulties when lying.

Conclusions

Research has shown that realism, clarity, and reconstructability of the story, all part of reality monitoring, can be useful to assess veracity. Generally, truth tellers obtain higher scores on all three variables than liars, but there is some variability across individuals owing to their personal characteristics. Metamemory and impulsivity also play a role in deception. From the implications of the results, the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are also provided.

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.