The accuracy of auditors' and Layered Voice Analysis (LVA) operators' judgments of truth and deception during police questioning

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 385-392

  Horvath, Frank ^a   Mccloughan, Jamie ^b   Weatherman, Dan ^c   Slowik, Stanley ^d  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Michigan State Police   (United States)

^c Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA)   (United States)

^d Stanley M Slowik Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Detecting deception in the voice; Detection of deception; Forensic credibility assessment; Forensic science; Layered voice analysis (LVA); Lie detection

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FORENSIC MEDICINE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; POLICE; VOICE;

FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; JUDGMENT; LIE DETECTION; POLICE; VOICE;

EID: 84875513180     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12066     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Horvath F. Detecting deception: the promise and the reality of voice stress analysis. J Forensic Sci 1982;27:340-51.
2. Hollien H, Harnsberger J. Voice stress analyzer instrumentation evaluation. Final Report, Counterintelligence Field Agency, CIFA contract-FA-4814-04-0011. Gainesville, FL: IASCP, University of Florida, 2006.
3. Horvath F. An experimental comparison of the psychological stress evaluator and the galvanic skin response in detection of deception. J Appl Psychol 1978;63:338-44.
4. Hollien H, Harnsberger J, Martin C, Hollien K. Evaluation of the NITV CVSA. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:183-93.
5. Damphousse K. Voice stress analysis: only 15 percent of lies about drug use detected in field test. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ Journal, 2009;259.
6. Harnsberger J, Hollien H, Martin C, Hollien K. Stress and deception in speech: evaluating layered voice analysis. J Forensic Sci 2009;54:642-50.
7. Damphousse K, Pointon L, Upchurch D, Moore R. Assessing the validity of voice stress analysis tools in a jail setting. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, 2007; Award No.: 2005-IJ-CX-0047 from the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
8. National Research Council. The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
9. Eriksson A, Lacerda F. Charlatanry in forensic speech science: a problem to be taken seriously. Int J Speech Lang Law 2007;14:169-93.
10. Jones E. The bogus pipeline: a new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychol Bull 1971;76:349-64.
11. Horvath F, Jayne B, Buckley J. Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behavior analysis interviews. J Forensic Sci 1993;39:793-807.
12. Horvath F, Blair J, Buckley J. The behavioural analysis interview: clarifying the practice, theory and understanding of its use and effectiveness. Int J Pol Sci and Mgt 2008;10:101-18.
13. Horvath F. Verbal and nonverbal clues to truthfulness and deception during polygraph examinations. J Pol Sci and Adm 1973;1:138-52.
14. Vrij A, Mann S, Fisher R. An empirical test of the behavioural analysis interview. Law Hum Behav 2006;30:329-45.
15. Kubis J. Comparison of voice analysis and polygraph as lie detection procedures. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Land Warfare Laboratory, 1973; Contract DAADO5-72-C-0217 from the U.S. Army Land Warfare Laboratory.
16. Webb A, Handler M, Krapohl D, Kircher J. A comparison of the objective scoring system and probability analysis. Polygraph 2008;37:250-5.
17. Olsen D, Harris J, Chiu W. The development of a physiological detection of deception scoring algorithm. Psychophysiology 1994;31:S11 [abstract].
18. Blackwell N. Polyscore 3.3 and psychophysiological detection of deception examiner rates of accuracy when scoring examinations from actual criminal investigations. Ft. McClellan, AL: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, 1998; Report No.: DoDP197-R-006. Available from Defense Technical Information Center, AD Number A355504/PAA, 1998.
19. Olsen D, Harris J, Capps M, Ansley N. Computerized polygraph scoring system. J Forensic Sci 1997;42:61-71.
20. Reid J, Inbau F. Truth and deception: the polygraph ("lie-detector") technique, 2nd edn. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1977.
21. DePaulo B, Lindsay J, Malone B, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H. Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 2003;129:74-118.
22. Rockwell P, Buller D, Burgoon J. The voice of deceit: refining and expanding vocal cues to deception. Commun Res Rpts 1997;14:451-9.
23. Bond G, Lee A. Language of lies in prison: linguistic classification of prisoners' truthful and deceptive natural language. App Cog Psychol 2005;19:313-29.
24. Burgoon J, Qin T. The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. J of Lang Soc Psychol 2006;25:76-96.
25. Horvath F. The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. J App Psychol 1977;62:127-36.
26. Krapohl D, Shull K, Ryan A. Does the confession criterion in case selection inflate polygraph accuracy estimates? Forensic Sci Commun 2002, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2002/index.htm/krapohl.htm (accessed December 29, 2012).
27. Warden R, Drizin S, editors. True stories of false confessions. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2009.
28. Cassell P. Protecting the innocent from false confessions and lost confessions from Miranda. J Crim Law and Crimin 1998;88:497-556.
29. Huff C, Rattner A, Sagarin E. Guilty until proven innocent: wrongful conviction and public policy. Crime and Delinq 1986;32:518-44.
30. Vrij A. Detecting lies and deceit: the psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2000.
31. Frank M, Feeley T. To catch a liar: challenges for research in lie detection training. J App Comm Res 2003;31:58-75.
32. Mann S, Vrij A, Bull R. Detecting true lies: police officers' ability to detect suspects' lies. J App Psychol 2004;89:137-49.