Presentation Type
Poster
Location
Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
Start Date
5-12-2015 11:00 AM
End Date
5-12-2015 1:00 PM
Subjects
Forensic psychology, Deception, Truthfulness and falsehood
Abstract
This study uses a verbal content analysis measure, the Forensic Assessment of Client Truthfulness (FACT), derived from the most empirically-supported measures in deception detection, Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring. This study tests the accuracy of the indirect assessment of truthfulness (i.e. consideration of the FACT criteria, which are empirically-related to truthfulness) in comparison to direct assessment of truthfulness (i.e. subjective consideration of whether a statement is true or false). The FACT, an indirect measure, is employed along with a direct assessment of truthfulness to distinguish between true and false statements. The study contains four research conditions including the true and false statements of men accused of sex offenses and of insanity defense claimants. Using a repeated measures design, the four statements were rated by 127 university students. Using ANOVA analyses and t-tests, the results showed that the eight items composing the FACT all significantly differentiate between true and false statements. The FACT score is more accurate at ascertaining truthfulness or deception (83% accuracy) in comparison with the direct measure (74% accuracy). These results strongly support the idea that indirect assessment can be more accurate when the criteria of the indirect assessment (e.g. clarity of detail, reconstructability) have a strong empirical relationship with truthfulness, despite no inherent or clear connection to truthfulness. Use of the FACT measure as an adjunct to the psychologist’s available methods for assessing client truthfulness could contribute to reliably answering the question of client deception.
Rights
© Copyright the author(s)
IN COPYRIGHT:
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
DISCLAIMER:
The purpose of this statement is to help the public understand how this Item may be used. When there is a (non-standard) License or contract that governs re-use of the associated Item, this statement only summarizes the effects of some of its terms. It is not a License, and should not be used to license your Work. To license your own Work, use a License offered at https://creativecommons.org/
Persistent Identifier
http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/19820
Included in
Direct Versus Indirect Assessment of Truthfulness
Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
This study uses a verbal content analysis measure, the Forensic Assessment of Client Truthfulness (FACT), derived from the most empirically-supported measures in deception detection, Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring. This study tests the accuracy of the indirect assessment of truthfulness (i.e. consideration of the FACT criteria, which are empirically-related to truthfulness) in comparison to direct assessment of truthfulness (i.e. subjective consideration of whether a statement is true or false). The FACT, an indirect measure, is employed along with a direct assessment of truthfulness to distinguish between true and false statements. The study contains four research conditions including the true and false statements of men accused of sex offenses and of insanity defense claimants. Using a repeated measures design, the four statements were rated by 127 university students. Using ANOVA analyses and t-tests, the results showed that the eight items composing the FACT all significantly differentiate between true and false statements. The FACT score is more accurate at ascertaining truthfulness or deception (83% accuracy) in comparison with the direct measure (74% accuracy). These results strongly support the idea that indirect assessment can be more accurate when the criteria of the indirect assessment (e.g. clarity of detail, reconstructability) have a strong empirical relationship with truthfulness, despite no inherent or clear connection to truthfulness. Use of the FACT measure as an adjunct to the psychologist’s available methods for assessing client truthfulness could contribute to reliably answering the question of client deception.