Premium
The Accuracy of Auditors' and Layered Voice Analysis ( LVA ) Operators' Judgments of Truth and Deception During Police Questioning *
Author(s) -
Horvath Frank,
McCloughan Jamie,
Weatherman Dan,
Slowik Stanley
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of forensic sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.715
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1556-4029
pISSN - 0022-1198
DOI - 10.1111/1556-4029.12066
Subject(s) - deception , audit , psychology , sample (material) , operator (biology) , lie detection , social psychology , accounting , business , biochemistry , chemistry , chromatography , repressor , transcription factor , gene
The purpose of this study was to determine if auditors could identify truthful and deceptive persons in a sample ( n = 74) of audio recordings used to assess the effectiveness of layered voice analysis ( LVA ). The LVA employs an automated algorithm to detect deception, but it was not effective here. There were 31 truthful and 43 deceptive persons in the sample and two LVA operators averaged 48% correct decisions on truth‐tellers and 25% on deceivers. Subsequent to the LVA analysis the recordings were audited by three interviewers, each independently rendering a decision of truthful or deceptive and indicating their confidence. Auditors' judgments averaged 68% correct decisions on truth‐tellers and 71% on deceivers. Auditors' detection rates, generally, exceeded chance and there was significantly ( p < 0.05) greater confidence on correct than incorrect judgments of deceivers but not on truth‐tellers. These results suggest that the success reported for LVA analysis may be due to operator's judgment.