"Truth Verification And Detecting Deception" by Kaaryn Gough

Truth Verification” and “Detecting Deception”

Are they the same thing?

In selling one’s services in the “Truth Verification/Detecting Deception” business, one must be aware of the optics. In other words, what will appeal to clients and ultimately land a contract for this service while at the same time, accurately portray what the service accomplishes.

In the beginning of my career as a statement analyst, I described my services as “Detecting Deception and Information Gathering”—after all, that’s what statement analysis accomplishes. But I soon discovered that the word “Deception” triggered negative responses from potential clients—“Oh, we don’t employ any deceptive people here” was the common inferred message I received back. What they were really looking for was someone who could read a statement or an interview and say, “Yes, the person is telling the truth”. They wanted confirmation of what they hoped was true, not what was actually true. Admitting they might have deceptive employees in their midst essentially would bring attention to the fact that their screening process had problems. Additionally, if word ever got out that such-and-such company had a dishonest employee, it could likely call into question the company’s policies, product, or service, ultimately tarnishing the name and hurting business.

In an effort to be more appealing, I changed my approach to calling it “Truth Verification and Information Gathering”, which sounded much nicer and made me feel like a nicer person. I was seeking the “truth” rather than digging for “deception”. Clients still got the same service but they were able to sell it up the chain of command much easier when the word “truth” was in the title.

However, for the past few years, I have gone back to describing my services as “Detecting Deception and Information Gathering”. Here’s why.

Let’s first examine examine the words “verify” and “detect”. “Verify”  is to prove or confirm something. “Detect” is to discover or perceive the existence of something. When you look at these definitions, which one more accurately describes what we do in statement analysis? Are we "proving" anything? Or our we "discovering"?

Many of you wrote they are different. You are correct. Some of you included the key concept—It is possible to tell a truthful story and still be deceptive. One does this simply by omitting information. This, by the way, is the most common form of deception.

Deception comes in all forms—fabrication (bold-faced lies); substitution (when asked what you did Saturday, you respond with what you did Friday), borrowing (you read it or saw it on television or heard someone else tell the story); telling a truth to avoid telling the truth (your answer is a truth, but you know it’s not the truth the reader/listener is looking for); and omission (you simply don’t include the information).

The following is the definition I use as my cornerstone when analyzing a statement.

Deception is the deliberate choice to mislead the target through an oral or written message that does not honestly reflect an individual’s actual knowledge, opinion or belief.

Deception is the omission of information that intentionally affects the logical conclusion of the target.

In both cases, the target is not informed of the liar’s intentions.


Consider the difference between telling a story that is comprised of a group of truthful sentences and telling a story that tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In other words, the statement “honestly reflects an individual’s knowledge, opinion or belief”.  It does not mislead nor does it affect the logical conclusion of the reader/listener.

In the case where Bill repeats something John said and Bill believed the information to be true, but in fact it was not, Bill would not be considered deceptive, according to this definition, because  the information Bill repeats to others honestly reflects his knowledge, opinion or belief. If he knew John was not telling the truth and still decided to repeat it to others as it being the truth, then yes, Bill would be considered deceptive at that point.

I included the last sentence "In both cases, the target is not informed of the liar’s intentions." in this definition for it could be said that actors or magicians are being deceptive. However, movies and magic shows are not true deception because you, as the audience, have been informed that the people you will see on the screen are not the people they are portraying. When going to see a magic show, you are informed it is "magic" not reality. Life and logic tell you that elephants can’t really disappear into thin air.

If you stick with this definition and make it your cornerstone in analysis, you will find the concepts and rules of the SCAN method of statement analysis are much easier to understand and employ.