Louise Jupe

Within-subjects verbal lie detection measures: a comparison between total detail and proportion of complications

Method. In the experiment, 53 participants were interviewed. Truth tellers (n = 27) discussed a trip they had made during the last twelve months; liars (n = 26) fabricated a story about such a trip. The interview consisted of an initial recall followed by a model statement (a detailed account of an experience unrelated to the topic of investigation) followed by a post-model statement recall. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications.

Justice at risk! An evaluation of a pseudoscientific analysis of a witness’ nonverbal behavior in the courtroom

Abstract Psychology and law have developed as disciplines through rigorous data collection, exploration and analysis, and the publication of findings through peer-review processes. Such findings are then used to implement evidence-based practices within a variety of settings. However, in parallel to factually and scientifically based knowledge, ‘alternative’ science, or pseudoscience, has gained in popularity. The present case study aims to evaluate the empirical evidence and theoretical underpinnings of a publically accessible analysis of a suspected serial killer’s nonverbal behavior during a bond hearing published online by two ‘synergologists’. The case study emphasizes how a ‘synergological’ analysis to understanding and interpreting human behavior fails to use empirical data, making generalized inferences based on erroneous assumptions. The case study also highlights the detrimental effects such assumptions may have within the justice system and why pseudoscientific analytical approaches should be vigorously challenged by research scientists.

Applying the Verifiability Approach in an International Airport Setting

ABSTRACT In the current study, we tested the utility of applying the Verifiability Approach (VA) within an international airport setting. The VA works on the notion that truth tellers provide more verifiable details than liars and has shown to be successful within other empirical deception detection scenarios. Three hundred and ninety-nine airside participants (those originating from Europe, Asia and African) were asked questions regarding their travel plans. We asked participants to either lie (n = 195) or tell the truth (n = 204) about their planned activities. The critical question required participants to provide information that would convince the investigator that they were telling the truth. We then transcribed and coded their responses for verifiable details; that is, details that could potentially be checked by an investigator. Overall, truth tellers provided significantly more verifiable details than liars. Furthermore, when taking their geographical origin into account, there was no interaction effect between veracity and region. Additionally, truth tellers provided a higher verifiable/total detail ratio than liars, which again showed no interaction effect between veracity and region. These findings support the suitability of the VA as a cross-cultural veracity tool and implications for its use as an additional security aid are discussed.

Cross-cultural verbal deception

Background. ‘Interviewing to detect deception’ research is sparse across different Ethnic Groups. In the present experiment, we interviewed truth tellers and liars from British, Chinese, and Arab origins. British interviewees belong to a low-context culture (using a communication style that relies heavily on explicit and direct language), whereas Chinese and Arab interviewees belong to high-context cultures (communicate in ways that are implicit and rely heavily on context).

To Veil or Not to Veil: Detecting Lies in The Courtroom. A Comment on Leach et al. (2016)

For the past 40 years, lie detection has predominantly been studied in the context of police-suspect and investigative interviews. In their paper, Leach et al. (2016) examined whether niqabs or hijabs interfere with the trial judges’ ability to detect deception and concluded that veiling enhanced trial judges’ ability to make accurate veracity judgments. In this comment, we argue that the conclusions made by Leach et al. are based upon an inaccurate experimental court paradigm and suffer from methodological and analytical issues. It is our opinion that the applicability of their research findings to real-life court proceedings alongside potential changes to court practices and policies based on Leach et al. should be regarded as naïve and misinformed.