Claim Validity Assessment (OVO) is a technique for assessing the credibility of verbal claims. Opportunities for detecting lies with the help of OVD significantly exceed the level of an accidental hit.
The OVU methodology is based on the principle that a statement born from memories of events that actually happened is meaningfully and qualitatively different from a statement based on fantasies and conjectures.
Analysis of speech content in order to identify signs of insincerity is carried out in three directions:
- Criteria content analysis in order to assess the degree of conformity of the structure and content of statements to the generalized model of a sincere speech message;
- Analysis of slips of the tongue and slips in order to reveal hidden information and motives for lying;
- Logical and psychological analysis of conversation tactics.
- Criteria content analysis in order to assess the degree of conformity of the structure and content of statements to the generalized model of a sincere speech message
General characteristics of the content (required to confirm the validity of the message).
Private characteristics of the content (criteria for the presence or severity of ways to describe events).
Specific characteristics of the content.
Content elements that reflect the characteristics of motivation.
General characteristics of the content
General characteristics include criteria for approval in general:
Logical structure.
The statement is meaningful - in other words, if the statement is coherent and logical, and its various segments do not contradict one another and do not diverge from each other. Most often it contains the following structure: introduction - main part - ending.
Unstructured presentation of information.
The way the information contained in the statement is presented does not meet the requirements of structure, consistency and chronological order. However, in general, the statement should not contain contradictions (criterion 1). Unstructured reproduction most often occurs when a person is in a difficult emotional state. The criterion loses its validity if a person has repeatedly had to tell his story or if he has thought a lot about the event that happened, thanks to which he manages to compose a chronologically more consistent story.
Number of details.
The statement should be full of details - that is, it should contain references to a place, time, people, objects and event. A request to specify some points will help to obtain additional information just in those cases when a person tells about real events, as opposed to those situations when it comes to a false statement.
Private characteristics of the content
Special content elements include certain episodes, by which the verifier judges the specificity and brightness of a certain statement, using questions on details:
Matching the context.
The event is defined in time and place of action, and the events that took place are woven into the canvas of everyday worries and habits.
Description of the interaction.
The statement contains information about an interaction in which at least two were involved - the perpetrator and the victim.
Replay of conversations.
A person retells a speech or a passage of a conversation in its original form, and he recognizes the speakers when presented to him the reproduced dialogues. If the interviewee simply retells the content of the dialogue, then it can be concluded that his testimony does not meet this criterion; in order to meet the requirements, the subject must reproduce a passage of speech of at least one of the interlocutors.
Unexpected difficulties during the incident.
This event was "wedged" by certain unexpected elements.
Specific content characteristics
Unusual details.
We mean references to the characteristics of people, objects or events, unusual and / or unique, but relevant in this context.
Insignificant details.
The interviewee dwells on issues that are essentially irrelevant to the charge.
Correct description of misunderstood details.
The interviewed person reports on the details of the incident, which he cannot comprehend.
External relevant circumstances to the case.
In the story of the interviewed person, we are talking about events that were not a direct part of the crime, but related to it.
A message about your own state of mind and mental state.
The interviewed person reports what feelings and experiences he had to experience at the time of the crime. This criterion also covers references to cognitive processes.
Assessment of the state of other participants in the events.
The interviewee describes the attacker's feelings, thoughts and motives during the crime.
Content elements that reflect the characteristics of motivation
Characterize the manner in which the person under study presents his testimony.
Making adjustments on their own initiative.
The interviewed person, on his own initiative, makes adjustments to the information previously presented by him or introduces new details in the material already submitted to him
Recognizing the scraps of your own memories.
The interviewee admits on his own initiative that he does not remember certain aspects of the incident
Expressing doubts about your own testimony.
The interviewee expresses doubts about his own words and admits that some of his testimony may be erroneous
Self-condemnation.
The interviewee makes such manifestations as self-deprecating, impartial statements to his own address
Apology for the culprit.
The interviewee favors the alleged offender by either apologizing or not judging him.
The verifier has the right to use any tool in his practice only when a stable skill for its use has been developed. You cannot learn from the respondents! That is why practice is so important.
