Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details.

Leal, Vrij, Deeb and Jupe (2018) found -with British participants-that a Model Statement elicited (1) more information and (2) a cue to deceit: After exposure to a Model Statement liars reported significantly more peripheral information than truth tellers. We sought to replicate these findings with Arabs living in Israel. Truth tellers and liars reported a stand-out event that they had (truth tellers) or pretended to have (liars) experienced in the last two

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars amongst Arab interviewees: A partial replication of Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018)

Leal¹,

Vrij²,

Vernham³

et al. 2019

Baselining as a Lie Detection Method

Vrij

2016

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.

Actions speak louder than words: The Devil's Advocate questioning protocol in opinions about protester actions

Mann

Vrij

Deeb

et al. 2022

The Devil's Advocate protocol has been developed to assist making veracity assessments when someone discusses their opinion. The present experiment focused on protester actions rather than controversial issues and also included an adapted version of the Verifiability Approach. Participants told the truth or lied about protester actions and the participants' answers to the eliciting opinion and Devil's Advocate questions were compared. The Devil's Advocate approach predicts the difference in answers (residue scores) to be more pronounced in truth tellers than in lie tellers in terms of quantity of the answers (number of words, details and arguments) and quality of the answers (plausibility, immediacy and clarity). The hypothesis was supported but only in terms of quality:Truth tellers' answers sounded more plausible and immediate and somewhat clearer than lie tellers' answers. Truth tellers also reported more digital verifiable sources than lie tellers.