Detecting deceit within a predominantly true statement using two parallel assessment methods: A pilot study

Uotinen, Marko; Simola, Petteri; Henttonen, Pentti J.

doi:10.2478/jms-2023-0005

Abstract

In human intelligence, a verbal statement from a source is seldom 100% true or false, and not very often is the source a total liar or a truth teller. From this standing point, a simple dichotomy of a liar or a truth teller might not offer an adequate diagnostic value for the purposes of human intelligence. A more diagnostic approach would be to assess which parts of the predominantly truthful verbal statement are likely to be true and which parts are assessed to be doubtful. In addition, the use of two parallel methods to detect deceit should improve the diagnostic value of the results. A pilot study in laboratory conditions (n = 8, yielding 190 assessment points) utilising an applied mock crime scenario was conducted. Correlation calculations showed that a dual-method approach slightly improved the within-statement truth accuracy, and it was achieved mainly by decreasing the number of false positives. As the truth accuracy was increased, the lie accuracy within the test group slightly decreased. The results confirmed that by applying parallel orienting response (EDA) and cognitive load (speech-related indices)-based assessment methods, it is possible to detect embedded lies successfully in an information-gathering interview setup.

References

Benedek, M., & Kaernbach, C. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 190(1), pp. 80-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.028.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Braithwaite, J. J., Watson, D. G., Jones, R., & Rowe, M. (2015). A Guide for Analysing Electrodermal Activity (EDA) & Skin Conductance Responses (SCRs) for Psychological Experiments (Revised version: 2.0). Technical Report, 2nd version. Selective Attention & Awareness Laboratory (SAAL) Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham, UK. URL: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-les/psych/saal/guide-electrodermal-activity.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), pp. 63-79. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
George, J. F., Tilley, P., & Giordano, G. (2014). Sender credibility and deception detection. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, pp. 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.027.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Deception detection. In: Brewer, N., & Williams, K. D. (eds.), Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. The Guilford Press, New York City, pp. 43-92.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Halevy, R., Shalvi, S., & Verschuere, B. (2014). Being honest about dishonesty: Correlating self-reports and actual lying. Human Communication Research, 40(1), pp. 54-72. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12019.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hart, C. L., Fillmore, D. G., & Griffith, J. D. (2009). Indirect detection of deception: Looking for change. Current Research in Social Psychology, 14(9), pp. 134-142.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Iacono, W. G. (2008). Accuracy of polygraph techniques: Problems using confessions to determine ground truth. Psychology and Behavior, 95(2), pp. 24-26. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.06.001.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kirchhübel, C., & Howard, D. M. (2013). Detecting suspicious behaviour using speech: Acoustic correlates of deceptive speech – An exploratory investigation. Applied Ergonomics, 44(5), pp. 694-702. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.04.016.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Levine, T. R., Daiku, Y., & Masip, J. (2022). The number of senders and total judgments matter more than sample size in deception-detection experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), pp. 191-204. doi: 10.1177/1745691621990369.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Memon, A., & Higham, P. A. (1999). A review of the cognitive interview. Psychology Crime & Law, 5(1-2), pp. 177-196. doi: 10.1080/10683169908415000.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), pp. 340-372. doi: 10.1037/a0020518.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nunan, J., Stanier, I., Milne, R., Shawyer, A., & Walsh, D. (2020). Eliciting human intelligence: Police source handlers’ perceptions and experiences of rapport during covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) interactions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(4), pp. 511-537. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Palena, N., Caso, L., & Vrij, A. (2019). Detecting lies via a theme-selection strategy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, p. 2775. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02775.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Palmatier, J. J., & Rovner, L. (2015). Credibility assessment: Preliminary process theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95(1), pp. 3-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.06.001.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Penttilä, N., Korpijaakko-Huuhka, A.-M., & Kent, R. D. (2018). Tavallista sujumattomuutta: Aikuisten puheen sujuvuuden kvantitatiivinen analyysi. Puhe ja kieli, 38(3), pp. 153-173. doi: 10.23997/pk.77384.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Koppen, P. J. (2012). Deception detection in police interrogations: Closing in on the context of criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), pp. 124-125. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.04.005.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verigin, B., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Zauzig, L. (2020). The interaction of truthful and deceptive information. Psychology Crime & Law, 26(4), pp. 367-383. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2019.1669596.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verschuere, B., Meijer, E., & Vrij, A. (2016). Increasing pressure does not benefit lie detection: A reply to Ten Brinke et al. (2015). Psychology Crime & Law, 22(9), pp. 915-920. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2016.1202249.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A. (2016). Baselining as a lie detection method. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), pp. 1112-1119. doi: 10.1002/acp.3288.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4), pp. 239-263. doi: 10.1023/A:1006610329284.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Ennis, E., Farman, S., & Mann, S. (2010). People’s perceptions of their truthful and deceptive interactions in daily life. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, pp. 6-42.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Leal, S. (2022). How researchers can make verbal lie detection more attractive for practitioners. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 30, pp. 383-396. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2035842.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), pp. 110-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, pp. 295-317. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Eliciting reliable information in investigative interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), pp. 129-136. doi: 10.1177/2372732214548592.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling events in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), pp. 253-265. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walczyk, J. J., Igou, F. P., Dixon, A. P., & Tcholakian, T. (2013). Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: A review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, p. 14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00014.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. N., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, pp. 1-59. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Detecting deceit within a predominantly true statement using two parallel assessment methods: A pilot study

Abstract

Paradigm

My account