Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 19;14(9):839.
doi: 10.3390/bs14090839.

Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment

Haneen Deeb  1 , Aldert Vrij  1 , Jennifer Burkhardt  1 , Sharon Leal  1 , Samantha Mann  1
Affiliations

Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment

Haneen Deeb et al. Behav Sci (Basel). .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: complications; interviews; lie detection; veracity judgment; verbal cues.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ROC curve for participants’ veracity judgments.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Deeb H., Vrij A., Leal S. The effects of a Model Statement on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews. Acta Psychol. 2020;207:103080. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103080. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bogaard G., Colwell K., Crans S. Using the reality interview improves the accuracy of the criteria-based content analysis and reality monitoring. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2019;33:1018–1031. doi: 10.1002/acp.3537. - DOI
    1. Matsumoto D., Hwang H.C. Clusters of nonverbal behaviors differ according to type of question and veracity in investigative interviews in a mock crime context. J. Police Crim. Psychol. 2018;33:302–315. doi: 10.1007/s11896-017-9250-0. - DOI
    1. Rosenfeld J.P. Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments. Elsevier; London, UK: 2018.
    1. Orthey R., Meijer E., Kooistra E., Broers N. How to detect concealed crime knowledge in situations with little information using the Forced Choice Test. Collabra Psychol. 2022;8:37483. doi: 10.1525/collabra.37483. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources