Research indicates that an untrained person typically detects deception at about a 50 percent rate. Yet practical methods exist to improve this accuracy. For instance, asking someone to recount a story in reverse or directing attention to specific details such as the number of adjectives used can reveal subtle inconsistencies. Insights from a polygraph examiner at the VB Psychophysiology Laboratory underscore that trained professionals look for patterns in verbal and nonverbal behavior that betray deception. The Shvyrkova Institute of Psychology in Russia has contributed foundational observations about how experts assess truthfulness through linguistic and behavioral cues.
In a controlled setting, researchers observed that when individuals are asked to retain and recount events in a free conversation, the level of specific details tends to decline over time. This erosion of detail can signal deception. Participants often shift toward general descriptions rather than precise, concrete elements as the narrative lengthens. From a linguistic perspective, such shifts are accompanied by a reduction in adjectives and descriptive language. Interestingly, examination by a polygraph examiner tends to yield an increased number of questions issued during the interview, as the respondent who has been lied to tends to react with heightened questioning and probing. These dynamics can emerge even when the person is not conscious of being deceived, suggesting that the cognitive load of fabricating or maintaining a lie prompts observable conversational changes.
The strategy of asking a story to be told backwards rests on the idea that backward narration disrupts smooth recounting. This disruption can cause hesitation and confusion, providing a potential cue to deception. While no single sign proves truthfulness, these micro-patterns can contribute to a broader assessment when combined with other indicators.
Beyond these techniques, there is growing support for profiling-based training as a more reliable approach to deception detection. According to Uchaev, individuals who undergo specialized profiling training improve their accuracy to approximately 75 to 80 percent. Profiling is defined as a structured set of techniques that evaluate both verbal and nonverbal behavior as a person describes different events. Practitioners look for variations in how information is presented, including the clarity, speed, volume, and tonal quality of speech, as well as physical cues. The key finding is that a seasoned analyst calibrates their observations to the individual, recognizing that each person has a unique baseline of behavior. When someone tries to conceal information, verbals such as the pace and content of speech may shift, and these changes become more apparent against that baseline.
Experts emphasize that reliability rises when profiling is applied consistently, with careful attention to context and individualized patterns. It is not enough to rely on a single cue; a holistic view of the narrative, the person speaking, and the situational context yields the most meaningful indicators. Ultimately, the goal is to integrate multiple signals—verbal content, delivery, and corroborating details—to form a considered judgment about truthfulness.