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

Harvey, Adam Charles; Vrij, Aldert; Nahari, Galit; Ludwig, Katharina

doi:10.1111/lcrp.12092

Cited by 45 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(93 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, an answer like 'I spoke to my friend James in the Vondelpark' might be a detail that could theoretically be investigated further by the interviewer (e.g., by consulting James and asking for confirmation), whereas 'I spoke to someone in the park' would not count as a verifiable detail. A series of studies showed that the number of verifiable details discriminates liars from truthtellers (Harvey, Vrij, Nahari, & Ludwig, 2016;Nahari et al, 2014a). For example, the number of verifiable details was higher in truthful insurance claims than in deceptive ones when both liars and truth-tellers were instructed to mention as much verifiable information as possible (Harvey et al, 2016).…”

Section: Verbal Deception Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because previous studies highlight the importance of asking the right questions, we used unexpected (e.g., transportation-related) questions in addition to expected (e.g., general) questions (Warmelink et al, 2012;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Leal, et al, 2013). Furthermore, there are indications that informing both liars and truth tellers about the quality of the expected information in truthful answers may benefit deception detection (Harvey et al, 2016;Nahari et al, 2014b, but see Nahari & Pazuelo, 2015. We, therefore, instructed half of the interviewees to provide highly specific information (e.g., names of persons or locations, dates) instead of merely asking to provide as much information as possible.…”

Section: The Current Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A series of studies showed that the number of verifiable details discriminates liars from truthtellers (Harvey, Vrij, Nahari, & Ludwig, 2016;Nahari et al, 2014a). For example, the number of verifiable details was higher in truthful insurance claims than in deceptive ones when both liars and truth-tellers were instructed to mention as much verifiable information as possible (Harvey et al, 2016). The working definition of verifiable information includes any activity that i) has been done with an identifiable person, ii) has been witnessed by an identifiable person, or iii) has been documented or recorded through technology (e.g., CCTV, email, social networks, see Nahari et al, 2014a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

Kleinberg

Nahari²,

Arntz

et al. 2017

Collabra: Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Academic research on deception detection has largely focused on the detection of past events. For many applied purposes, however, the detection of false reports about someone's intention merits attention. Based on the verbal deception detection paradigm, we explored whether true statements on intentions were more detailed and more specific than false statements on intentions, particularly when instructed to be as specific as possible. Method: Participants (n = 222) lied or told the truth about their upcoming travel plans either providing 'as much information as possible' (standard instructions) or being 'as specific as possible' (i.e., mentioning times, locations, places; specific instructions), resulting in four conditions (truthful vs. deceptive intention by standard vs. specific instructions). We collected data via a custom-made web app and performed automated verbal content analysis of participants' written answers. Findings: We did not find a significant difference in the specificity of participants' statements. The instruction to be as specific as possible promoted more specific information but did not help to discern honest from deceptive flying intentions. Conclusion:The experiment reported here attempted to demonstrate automated verbal deception detection of intentions. The difficulty in capturing genuine intentions, and the non-intrusive, noninteractive questioning approach might explain the null findings and raise questions for further research. We conclude with suggestions for a novel framework on semi-interactive information elicitation. With an increased demand for security systems like airport border control, researchers and practitioners alike have identified the need for applications to detect deception on a large scale (Honts & Hartwig, 2014;Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010). For example, the context of airport border control excludes many tools used in deception research due to their limited applicability. With developments towards more seamless passenger flows and minimal passenger-security personnel interaction, an ideal deception detection system would be implementable at stages even before passengers arrive at the airport (e.g., a filter system during online check-in processes, Kleinberg, Arntz, & Verschuere, in press). A promising paradigm that might be applicable in settings that require the testing of a vast number of people is verbal deception detection. However, because the majority of verbal deception detection studies were conducted on the verbal content of face-to-face interviews, a key challenge is the transition towards large-scale applicable methods. This paper reports an attempt to apply verbal deception detection tools on a large-scale in an airport security context. Verbal deception detectionThe idea to use the verbal content as an indicator of deception is rooted in the Undeutsch Hypothesis (1967, 1982) stating that truthful statements differ from false declarations in quality and content because the process through which the particular statement is produced is d...

show abstract

Section: Verbal Deception Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Current Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

Kleinberg

Nahari²,

Arntz

et al. 2017

Collabra: Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Across studies, this warning has resulted in an increased number of verifiable details being reported by truth tellers but not by liars, strengthening the efficiency of the Verifiability Approach. As part of the Verifiability Approach, this warning has also facilitated discrimination between truths and lies in recent insurance claims study (Harvey et al, 2017;Vrij et al, 2016). Thus, the Information protocol instructions seem to motivate truth tellers to search their memory for additional verifiable details -something that is not possible for liars to do.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using an 'Information Protocol', several studies (Harvey, Vrij, Nahari, & Ludwig, 2017;Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2014b;Vrij et al, 2016) have examined the effect of informing participants, that the details of their statements could be subsequently checked by the interviewer. Across studies, this warning has resulted in an increased number of verifiable details being reported by truth tellers but not by liars, strengthening the efficiency of the Verifiability Approach.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Verifiability Approach to detection of malingered physical symptoms

Bošković

Bogaard

Vrij³

et al. 2017

Psychology, Crime & Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Baselining as a Lie Detection Method

Vrij

2016

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For entirely valid reasons, practitioners urge researchers to develop within-subjects lie detection methods. This article highlights some problems with the existing and popular nonverbal baseline lie detection method and with the use of the Validity Checklist in SVA. The article further suggests how verbal within-subjects lie detection methods can be introduced in interview settings by implementing verbal lie detection interview protocols designed in recent years. The article concludes that these within-subjects methods do not provide the ultimate solution as clear cut-off scores cannot be established, but they are a step forward in verbal lie detection.

show abstract

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

Cited by 45 publications

References 34 publications

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

The Verifiability Approach to detection of malingered physical symptoms

Baselining as a Lie Detection Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About