The interaction of truthful and deceptive information

Abstract

Research consistently shows that truthful accounts are richer in detail than deceptive accounts. It is unknown, however, how interviewees strategically regulate the information they provide when their accounts contain both truthful and deceptive information. This study examined how truths and lies interact, and whether interviewees' self-reported strategies reflect such interactions. Participants (n = 144) provided one statement consisting of two elements. We manipulated the veracity of these elements, with participants allocated to either both truthful, both deceptive, or one truthful and the other deceptive conditions. Results indicated that interviewees calibrate the richness of detail provided in the first element of their statement based on the veracity of the following element. Moreover, our exploratory tests revealed that lies become more detailed when they are flanked by truthful information relative to when they are flanked by other deceptive information. The finding that truthful and deceptive information interacts to influence detail richness provides insight into liars' strategic manipulation of information when statements contain a mixture of truths and lies. Strategic manipulations of this kind could potentially threaten the reliability of commonly used verbal lie detection tools. This study also offers insight to legal practitioners who rely on baseline deviations to assess credibility.

Embedding lies into truthful stories does not affect their quality

“…In line with previous research (e.g., Amado et al, ; Luke, ), we found that entirely truthful statements were richer in detail compared to entirely fabricated statements (Hypothesis 1). In contrast to previous findings by Verigin et al (), we did not find evidence that lies embedded into truthful stories were more richly detailed than lies embedded into completely fabricated stories (Hypothesis 2). Regarding our secondary dependent measures, self‐handicapping strategies emerged as the only (weakly) diagnostic cue to differentiate entirely truthful statements from entirely fabricated statements (Hypothesis 3), and embedded lies from complete lies (Hypothesis 4).…”

“…If participants would successfully maintain consistency when embedding their lies into an otherwise truthful statement, their lies could become more richly detailed when surrounded by truthful information. Indeed, recent research compared how interviewees strategically regulate the information they provide when their accounts contain one truthful and one deceptive component and found that lies became more richly detailed when preceded or followed by truthful information compared to when preceded or followed by other lies (Verigin, Meijer, Vrij, & Zauzig, ). The present study aimed to extend these findings by examining the extent to which the embedding of lies into otherwise truthful stories affects the quality of information.…”

Sketching while narrating as a tool to detect deceit

“…Not a single veracity assessment tool (or nonverbal lie detection method) employs cut‐off scores and developing those should be the focus of deception researchers examining speech content. Recent research into “verbal baselining” is perhaps a step in the right direction (Palena, Caso, & Vrij, ; Schemmel, Maier, & Volbert, ; Verigin, Meijer, Vrij, & Zauzig, ).…”

Detecting false intentions using unanticipated questions

“…But for this variance to explain the difference in findings between our study and others, one would need to assume that in previous studies, participants in the truth condition were substantially more truthful. This may be unlikely, as other recent research shows it is not rare for liars to include truths [48–50], and truthtellers to include lies [51–54].…”