Assessing the Credibility of Statements

Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) is a methodology used to evaluate the credibility of statements presented orally. The ability to detect deception using SVA significantly exceeds random chance. The core principle of SVA is that statements based on real memories differ in content and quality from those based on imagination or fabrication.

Speech content analysis to identify signs of insincerity is conducted in three main areas:

• Criterion-Based Content Analysis (CBCA): Evaluates how well the structure and content of statements match a generalized model of a truthful verbal message.
• Analysis of Slips and Freudian Slips: Identifies concealed information and motives for lying.
• Logical-Psychological Analysis: Examines the tactics used during the conversation.

Criterion-Based Content Analysis (CBCA)

CBCA must take into account individual personality traits, including cognitive (intellectual) and linguistic skills. Therefore, it is always supplemented by a general psychological and speech assessment of the person.

CBCA involves evaluating the following types of content characteristics:

• General content characteristics (required to confirm the credibility of the statement)
• Specific content characteristics (criteria for the presence or prominence of ways of describing events)
• Unique content characteristics
• Content elements reflecting motivational features

General Content Characteristics

• Logical Structure: The statement is meaningful, coherent, and logical, with segments that do not contradict or diverge from each other. Typically, it follows an introduction – main part – conclusion structure.
• Unstructured Presentation: The way information is presented may lack structure, sequence, and chronological order. However, the statement as a whole should not contain contradictions. Unstructured narration is more common when a person is under emotional stress. This criterion is less relevant if the person has recounted the story multiple times or has thought about the event extensively, allowing for a more chronologically ordered account.
• Amount of Detail: The statement should be rich in details, including references to place, time, people, objects, and events. Asking for clarification on certain points can help elicit additional information, especially when the person is describing real events, as opposed to fabricated ones.

Specific Content Characteristics

• Contextual Consistency: The event is defined in time and place, and the described events are woven into the fabric of daily routines and habits.
• Description of Interactions: The statement includes information about interactions involving at least two people, such as a perpetrator and a victim.
• Reproduction of Conversations: The person recounts speech or parts of a conversation in its original form and can recognize the speakers when presented with the reproduced dialogues. If the respondent only summarizes the conversation, this criterion is not met; to satisfy it, the person must reproduce at least a portion of one participant’s speech.
• Unexpected Difficulties During the Event: The event includes unexpected elements or complications.

Unique Content Characteristics

• Unusual Details: Mentions of unique or unusual features of people, objects, or events that are significant in the given context.
• Insignificant Details: The respondent focuses on issues that are essentially unrelated to the accusation.
• Accurate Description of Ununderstood Details: The respondent reports details of the event that they cannot fully comprehend.
• External Circumstances Related to the Case: The account includes events not directly part of the crime but related to it.
• Reporting Own Emotional and Mental State: The respondent describes the feelings and experiences they had during the incident, including references to cognitive processes.
• Assessment of Other Participants’ States: The respondent describes the feelings, thoughts, and motives of the perpetrator during the incident.

Content Elements Reflecting Motivational Features

• Voluntary Corrections: The respondent independently corrects previously given information or adds new details to their account.
• Acknowledgment of Fragmentary Memories: The respondent admits, on their own initiative, that they do not remember certain aspects of the event.
• Expression of Doubt in Own Testimony: The respondent expresses doubts about their own words and allows that some of their statements may be incorrect.
• Self-Criticism: The respondent makes self-deprecating or unflattering statements about themselves.
• Excusing the Perpetrator: The respondent shows leniency toward the alleged perpetrator, apologizing for them or refraining from condemnation.

Any verification tool should only be used in practice once the verifier has developed a stable skill in its application. One should not learn at the expense of those being interviewed! This is why practice is so important.