ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

We tested the hypothesis derived from eye blink literature that when liars experience cognitive demand, their lies would be associated with a decrease in eye blinks, directly followed by an increase in eye blinks when the demand has ceased after the lie is told. A total of 13 liars and 13 truth tellers lied or told the truth in a target period; liars and truth tellers both told the truth in two baseline periods. Their eye blinks during the target and baseline periods and directly after the target period (target offset period) were recorded. The predicted pattern (compared to the baseline periods, a decrease in eye blinks during the target period and an increase in eye blinks during the target offset period) was found in liars and was strikingly different from the pattern obtained in truth tellers. They showed an increase in eye blinks during the target period compared to the baseline periods, whereas their pattern of eye blinks in the target offset period did not differ from baseline periods. The implications for lie detection are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Blinking During and After Lying
Sharon Leal Æ Aldert Vrij
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract We tested the hypothesis derived from eye blink literature that when liars
experience cognitive demand, their lies would be associated with a decrease in eye blinks,
directly followed by an increase in eye blinks when the demand has ceased after the lie is
told. A total of 13 liars and 13 truth tellers lied or told the truth in a target period; liars and
truth tellers both told the truth in two baseline periods. Their eye blinks during the target
and baseline periods and directly after the target period (target offset period) were
recorded. The predicted pattern (compared to the baseline periods, a decrease in eye blinks
during the target period and an increase in eye blinks during the target offset period) was
found in liars and was strikingly different from the pattern obtained in truth tellers. They
showed an increase in eye blinks during the target period compared to the baseline periods,
whereas their pattern of eye blinks in the target offset period did not differ from baseline
periods. The implications for lie detection are discussed.
Keywords Eye blinks Deception
Research has shown that eye blinks decrease when cognitive demand increases (Bageley
and Manelis 1979; Bauer et al. 1987; Drew 1951; Goldstein et al. 1992; Holland and
Tarlow 1972, 1975; Wallbott and Scherer 1991). For example, Holland and Tarlow (1972)
found that participants blinked less when they had to memorize an 8 digit number com-
pared to a 4 digit number over a period of 70 s. Research further suggests that during gaps
of cognitive demand a flurry of blinks occurs (Holland and Tarlow 1972; Leal 2005;
Malmstrom et al. 1977; Stern et al. 1984). For example, Holland and Tarlow (1972)
S. Leal (&) A. Vrij
Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth (UK), King Henry I St.,
Portsmouth, England PO1 2DY
A. Vrij
J Nonverbal Behav
DOI 10.1007/s10919-008-0051-0
instructed participants to add up numbers presented to them during trials containing 10 s
intervals. For nine trials the number to add up on intervals 2, 4, and 6 was zero (which
makes the summation task easy on these intervals). For the other nine trials, none of the
numbers were zero. The trials that contained zeros resulted in more eye blinks than the
trials that did not contain zeros, due to an increase in eye blinks during the intervals when
the zeros were presented.
We thought that these findings could be relevant to predict eye blinks displayed during
and directly after lying, and examined this in the present experiment. Lying is sometimes
more cognitively demanding than truth telling (see below), and in such situations lying
would result in a decrease in eye blinks. Once the lie is told, a break in cognitive demand
occurs, which would result in an increase in blinking.
Cognitive Demand
Lying can be more cognitively demanding than truth telling (DePaulo et al. 2003; Zuck-
erman et al. 1981), and several aspects of lying contribute to this increased mental load
(Vrij 2004, 2008; Vrij et al. 2006b, in press, 2008). First, formulating the lie itself may be
cognitively taxing (Vrij 2008). Liars must need to make up their stories and must monitor
their fabrication so that they are plausible and adhere to everything the observer knows or
might find out. In addition, liars must remember their earlier statements, so that they appear
consistent when re-telling their story, and know what they told to whom. Liars should also
avoid making slips of the tongue, and should refrain from providing new leads. Second,
liars are typically less likely than truth tellers to take their credibility for granted (DePaulo
et al. 2003; Gilovich et al. 1998; Kassin 2005; Kassin and Gudjonsson 2004; Kassin and
Norwick 2004; Vrij et al. 2006c). As such, liars will be more inclined than truth tellers to
monitor and control their demeanor so that they will appear honest to the lie detector
(DePaulo and Kirkendol 1989), which should be cognitively demanding. Third, because
liars do not take credibility for granted, they may monitor the interviewer’s reactions more
carefully in order to assess whether they are getting away with their lie (Buller and
Burgoon 1996; Schweitzer et al. 2002). Carefully monitoring the interviewer also imposes
cognitive load. Fourth, liars may be preoccupied by the task of reminding themselves to act
and role-play (DePaulo et al. 2003), which requires extra cognitive effort. Fifth, liars have
to suppress the truth while they are lying and this is also cognitively demanding (Spence
et al. 2001). Finally, whereas activating the truth often happens automatically, activating a
lie is more intentional and deliberate, and thus requires mental effort (Gilbert 1991;
Walczyk et al. 2003, 2005).
Obviously, lying is not always more cognitively demanding than truth telling
(McCornack 1997). Perhaps the earlier stated reasons given as to why lying is more
cognitively demanding could give us insight into when it is more cognitively demanding.
That is, lying is more cognitively demanding to the degree that these six principles are in
effect. For example, lying is likely to be more demanding than truth telling only when
interviewees are motivated to be believed. Only under those circumstances can it be assumed
that liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers and hence will be more
inclined than truth tellers to monitor their own behavior and/or the interviewer’s reactions.
Second, for lying to be more cognitively demanding than truth telling, liars must be able to
retrieve their truthful activity easily and have a clear memory of it. Only when liars’
knowledge of the truth is easily and clearly accessed will it be difficult for them to suppress
the truth. On the other side of the equation, truth tellers also need to have easy access to the
truth for the task to be relatively undemanding. If truth tellers have to think hard to remember
J Nonverbal Behav
the target event (e.g., because it was not distinctive or it occurred long ago), their cognitive
demands may exceed the cognitive demands that liars require for fabricating a story.
In experimental studies researchers ensure that interviewees are motivated (typically by
giving a reward for making a credible impression) and that the target event is easily
retrieved (typically by interviewing the suspects shortly after informing them about the
target event), and the present experiment is no exception to this. When using this exper-
imental setting, lying has been found to be more demanding than truth telling in various
settings. Participants who have directly assessed their own cognitive load report that lying
is more cognitively demanding than truth telling. This occurred not only when lengthy,
elaborative responses, were required (Granhag and Stro
mwall 2002; Hartwig et al. 2006;
mwall et al. 2006; Vrij et al. 2001, 2006c; Vrij and Mann 2006; White and Burgoon
2001), but also when short responses were sufficient (Caso et al. 2005; Vrij et al. 1996,
2006c). In fMRI deception research, lying and truth telling is differentiated only by the act
of pressing either a ‘lie’ or ‘truth’ button. Nevertheless, participants’ brain activity
reveals that lying is more cognitively demanding than truth telling (Spence et al. 2004).
In forensic settings, we can reasonably assume that interviewees will be motivated to be
believed, but we cannot assume that interviewees will always be able to retrieve the target
event easily, as this will vary from one case to another. Analyses of police interviews with
real-life suspects, however, suggests that lying is often more cognitively demanding than
truth telling in the forensic setting. First, in those police interviews, lies were accompanied
by decreased blinking, increased pauses, and decreased hand and finger movements, all of
which are signs of cognitive load (Mann et al. 2002; Vrij and Mann 2003). Second, police
officers who saw videotapes of these suspect interviews reported that the suspects appeared
to be thinking harder when they lied than when they told the truth (Mann and Vrij 2006).
We expected the following patterns for eye blinks in liars and truth tellers. Liars, who make
up an alibi about the target period, should experience more cognitive demand when
recalling the target period deceptively than when recalling the baseline periods truthfully
(see the Method section for details). We therefore predicted that liars would show less
blinking when recalling the target period than when recalling the baseline periods. We
further predicted that when this high cognitive demand ceases, i.e., directly after the lie is
told, a flurry of blinks would occur (which we label the compensatory effect).
Truth tellers tell the truth during all periods, and should therefore experience equal
cognitive demand during the target period and baseline periods. This would result in the
same amount of blinking during the target and baseline periods. Since the target period is
not associated with heightened cognitive demand in truth tellers, there is no theoretical
reason why the compensatory effect would occur in truth tellers directly after the target
In the experiment 26 participants (18 female, 8 male) ranging in age from 18 to 41
(M = 22.38, SD = 6.89) took part.
J Nonverbal Behav
Participants were approached with the question whether they were willing to participate in
an experiment examining if deception could be detected by looking at changes in physi-
ology. The experimental protocol involved two control (baseline) free recall periods and
one experimental (target) free recall period. In the first baseline period, participants spent
time with the experimenter in the psychophysiology lab and received information about the
experiment. During this time, participants selected an envelope that they were to open
when alone at the end of the session. They were informed that the envelope contained
information as to whether they would be assigned to a ‘liar’ or ‘truth-teller’ condition and
also instructions regarding what to do during this ‘target’ period of time. In the target
period, 13 truth tellers were told to go about their normal business for 10 min but not to do
anything that they may later have to lie about. The thirteen liars were asked to steal an
exam paper from a professor’s office. They were instructed to deny having stolen the paper
later and to pretend to have done something else instead. All participants completed the
study as requested. After the 10 target minutes, liars and truth tellers returned to the
psychophysiology lab. They then received information about the physical measures that
would be taken (second baseline period). The experimenter, unaware of the veracity
condition to which the participants were allocated, asked each participant to freely recall
exactly what they were doing, including as much detail as possible during the 1st, 2nd, or
3rd 10 min time period. After the interviewee finished their recall about one period, the
experimenter waited ten seconds before asking the question about the next period. The
order in which the two baseline periods and target period were recalled was counterbal-
anced. The response length of baseline period 1 (M = 59.2, SD = 21.9), baseline period 2
(M = 68.60, SD = 21.6), and target period (M = 67.61, SD = 26.5) did not differ
significantly for truth tellers and liars (all F(1,24)s \ 0,55, all p’s [ 0.46).
To motivate participants they were informed that if they gave a detailed and convincing
account of what they were doing during each period then they would be entered into a draw
to win a £100 bookstore voucher. (In reality all participants were entered into the draw.)
The participants were also told that they would take part in a polygraph test to examine the
veracity of their statements. (We submitted them to a guilty knowledge polygraph test, not
discussed in this article.) Previous research revealed that polygraph tests appeal to par-
ticipants and motivate them to perform well (Vrij et al. 1997). The experiment was
conducted in accordance with BPS guidelines. After the experiment had finished, all
participants received a full debriefing and were assured that the ‘stolen’ exam paper was
not in fact a real copy but rather one devised by the experimenter who had no knowledge as
to which questions would subsequently be asked in their real exam.
Blink rates were recorded using a Neuroscan 4 amplification and software package. Two
electrodes above and below the left eye monitored blinks, while electrodes placed at the
side of both eyes monitored horizontal eye movements. Impedances were kept below 5 KX
and signals were filtered with a bandpass of 0.15–50 Hz. The gain was set at 250 for each
of the electrodes. Blink data were digitized at a sampling frequency of 250 Hz and stored
on disc for later analysis. Recordings of blinks began 10 s pre-stimulus, and continued
throughout the experimental session. The scores of the two baseline periods were com-
bined for the data analyses. Changes in blinking during the target period and baseline
periods were calculated for each participant by subtracting their baseline values from the
target period responses. To measure the compensatory effect, we calculated for each
participant the eye blinks displayed during the 6 s immediately after the target period, and
subtracted the baseline values from this offset value.
J Nonverbal Behav
No differences in blink rate emerged between truth tellers and liars in the baseline
period, F(1, 24) = 1.26, ns, g
= .05 or target period, F(1, 24) = .86, ns, g
= .04,
whereas in the target offset period truth tellers (M = .65, SD = .44) displayed fewer
eyeblinks than liars (M = 1.53, SD = 1.1), F(1, 24) = 7.07, p \ .05, g
= .23. How-
ever, it is common practice in psychophysiological research to use ‘change’ or
‘percentage’ scores in preference to raw values (M =+.02, SD = .17). These methods
are used to avoid individual differences in participants’ initial physiological values
distorting the means.
Changes in eye blinks from baseline that occurred during and immediately following
the target period are illustrated in Fig. 1. A mixed 2 (Veracity: truth vs. lie) 9 2 (Phase:
during target and target offset) ANOVA was conducted. No main effect for Veracity was
found, F(1, 24) = 2.30, ns, g
= .09, but there was a main effect for Phase, F(1,
24) = 7.05, p \ .01, g
= .23, whereby overall there were fewer blinks per second
during the target period (M =+.02, SD = .17) than in the target offset period
(M =+.48, SD = .93). There was also a Veracity 9 Phase interaction effect, F(1,
24) = 6.76, p \ .05, g
= .22. Follow up t-tests on liars and truth tellers separately
revealed that, as reported in Fig. 1, liars displayed a reduction in blink rate during the
target period compared to baseline (M =-.07, SD = .11), (t(12) = 2.29, p \ .05,
d = .64), and that, conforming with the compensatory effect hypothesis, this was fol-
lowed by an increase in blink rate in the target offset period compared to baseline
(M =+.84, SD = 1.16), (t(12) = 2.56, p \ .05, d = .72). In contrast, truth tellers’ blink
rate increased during the target period compared to baseline (M =+.12, SD = .16),
(t(12) = 2.58, p \ .05, d = .75), whereas no significant difference occurred in blinks in
the target offset period comparison to baseline (M = 13, SD = .42), t(12) = 1.09, ns.
When we compared the blinks during the target period with the target offset period, we
found a significant difference for liars (they displayed an increase in blinks during the
target offset period compared to the target period), F(1, 12) = 8.06, p \ .05, g
= .40,
but not for truth tellers, F(1, 12) = .001, ns, g
= .00. In total, 10 out of 13 liars (77%)
demonstrated the pattern associated with deception (e.g., inhibition of blinking during the
target period and the increase in blinking during the offset period) whereas only two out
of truth tellers (15%) showed this pattern.
Truth teller
Target offset
Fig. 1 Changes in blink rate per
second during the target period
and directly after the target
period (target offset)
J Nonverbal Behav
This experiment demonstrated that in situations when lying requires cognitive demand,
lying is associated with a decrease in eye blinks followed by a compensatory effect: An
increase in eye blinks directly after the lie is told and cognitive demand has ceased. It is
striking what different patterns in eye blinks emerged for liars and truth tellers (see Fig. 1);
such striking differences in behavior between liars and truth tellers are rarely seen in
deception research (DePaulo et al. 2003; Vrij 2008). Liars displayed a decrease in blinks
during deception (i.e., the target period) compared to baseline and this was followed by an
increase in blinks in the offset period when the lie was told (compared to both target period
and baseline). Truth tellers showed an increase in eye blinks during the target period
compared to baseline which was not followed by a change in blinks directly after the target
period (compared to both target period and baseline). The increase in eye blinks in truth
tellers was not predicted but could perhaps be explained in terms of anxiety. Perhaps truth
tellers experienced more anxiety during the target period than during baseline, as they may
have realized that the target period is the key component of the test where their credibility
would be assessed. Anxiety is associated with an increase in eye blinks (Chiba 1985;
Harrigan and O’Connell 1996; Tecce 1992). Since the target period is not associated with
heightened cognitive demand in truth tellers, there is no theoretical reason why the
compensatory effect would occur in truth tellers, and, indeed, it did not occur.
Whether lie detectors unknown to our findings will interpret the eye blinks displayed by
liars and truth tellers correctly remains to be seen. Research has demonstrated that lie
detectors typically associate an increase in eye blinks with deception (Stro
mwall et al.
2004; Taylor and Hick 2007; Vrij et al. 2006a). Our findings suggest that they would (i)
incorrectly classify truth tellers as liars and (ii) incorrectly classify liars as truth tellers
when they rely upon eye blinks to detecting deception in circumstances where lying
requires cognitive load.
Skeptics may argue that we used a low-stakes situation and that our findings that liars
reduced their blinking when they experience cognitive load may not hold true when the
stakes are high. Perhaps in high-stakes situations, where the outcomes really matter to liars,
the anxiety that liars experience gets the overhand and that they will show increased eye
blinks when lying. Mann et al.’s (2002) research, in which the eye blinks displayed by
suspects in police interviews when they told the truth and lied during these interviews were
examined, suggest that the skeptics may be wrong. Mann et al.’s study was clearly a high-
stakes study as the suspects were suspected of serious crimes such as murder, rape, and
arson. Yet the suspects showed a decrease in eye blinks when lying. Whether this was
followed by a compensatory effect immediately after the lie was told is unknown, as this
has not been analyzed. It cannot be analyzed either because of the ground truth. Although
Mann et al. have established the ground truth during the truths and lies, the ground truth of
the statements directly after the truths and lies is unknown in their dataset.
As a practical implication of our findings, we believe that patterns of blink rate could be
monitored to help professional lie-catchers identify parts of suspects’ statements that are
indicative of deception and thus warrant further scrutiny. A benefit of monitoring blink rate
rather than other physiological measures is that it can be done non-intrusively via a remote
camera that could pick up eye blinks by monitoring occlusion of the retina (Stern 2006,
personal communication to Sharon Leal) which makes it applicable in many situations.
Our observations for liars may not just be related to eye blinks. For example, when
Clinton testified before the Grand Jury in the Monica Lewinsky case, he sat very still when
he answered potentially incriminating questions about whether or not he ordered his
J Nonverbal Behav
personal secretary to go to Lewinsky’s home to collect the presents she had received from
him (Vrij 2002). However, he made several subtle shifting movements after answering
these questions. We hope that our article will stimulate further research into the behaviors
displayed by liars during and directly after the lie in situations where they experience
cognitive load.
Bageley, J., & Manelis, L. (1979). Effect of awareness on an indicator of cognitive load. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 49, 591–594.
Bauer, L. O., Goldstein, R., & Stern, J. A. (1987). Effects of information processing demands on physio-
logical response patterns. Human Factors, 29, 213–234.
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.
Caso, L., Gnisci, A., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2005). Processes underlying deception: An empirical analysis of
truths and lies when manipulating the stakes. Journal of Interviewing and Offender Profiling, 2,
Chiba, H. (1985). Analysis of controlling facial expression when experiencing negative effect on an ana-
tomical basis. Journal of Human Development, 21, 22–29.
DePaulo, B. M., & Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of
deception. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 51–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to
deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
Drew, G. C. (1951). Variations in reflex blink-rate during visual motor tasks. Quaterly Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology, 3, 73–88.
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of
others’ ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
Goldstein, R., Bauer, L. O., & Stern, J. A. (1992). Effect of task difficulty and interstimulus interval on blink
parameters. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 13, 111–118.
Granhag, P. A., & Stro
mwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and nonverbal cues to
deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–257.
Harrigan, J. A., & O’Connell, D. M. (1996). Facial Movements during anxiety states. Personality and
Individual Differences, 21, 205–212.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stro
mwall, L., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police
interrogations: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619.
Holland, M. K., & Tarlow, G. (1972). Blinking and mental load. Psychological Reports, 31, 119–127.
Holland, M. K., & Tarlow, G. (1975). Blinking and thinking. Psychological Reports, 41, 403–406.
Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American
Psychologist, 60, 215–228.
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and
issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.
Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence.
Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221.
Leal, S. (2005). Central and peripheral physiology of attention and cognitive demand: Understanding how
brain and body work together. Ph.D. thesis, University of Portsmouth, Department of Psychology.
Malmstrom, F. V., Rachofsky, S. E., & Weber, R. J. (1977). Effects of illumination and meter on spon-
taneous blinking. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 163–165.
Mann, S., & Vrij, A. (2006). Police officers’ judgements of veracity, tenseness, cognitive load and attempted
behavioural control in real life police interviews. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 307–319.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2002). Suspects, lies and videotape: An analysis of authentic high-stakes
liars. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 365–376.
McCornack, S. A. (1997). The generation of deceptive messages: Laying the groundwork for a viable theory
of interpersonal deception. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication
theory (pp. 91–126). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schweitzer, M. E., Brodt, S. E., & Croson, R. T. A. (2002). Seeing and believing: Visual access and the
strategic use of deception.
The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 258–275.
J Nonverbal Behav
Spence, S. A., Farrow, T. F. D., Herford, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P. W. R. (2001).
Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport: For Rapid
Communication of Neuroscience Research, 12, 2849–2853.
Spence, S. A., Hunter, M. D., Farrow, T. F. D., Green, R. D., Leung, D. H., Hughes, C. J., et al. (2004). A
cognitive neurobiological account of deception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philosoph-
ical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 359, 1755–1762.
Stern, J. A., Walrath, L. C., & Goldstein, R. (1984). The endogenous eye blink. Psychophysiology, 21,
mwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In P. A.
Granhag & L. A. Stro
mwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 229–250). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
mwall, L. A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behaviour and
strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 207–219.
Taylor, R., & Hick, R. F. (2007). Believed cues to deception: Judgements in self-generated trivial and
serious situations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 321–332.
Tecce, J. J. (1992). Psychology: Physiology and experimental. In McGraw-Hill yearbook of science and
technology (pp. 375–377). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vrij, A. (2002). Telling and detecting lies. In N. Brace & H. L. Westcott (Eds.), Applying psychology
(pp. 179–241). Milton Keynes, Open University.
Vrij, A. (2004). Invited article: Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 9, 159–181.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: Wiley.
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006a). Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the general
public’s beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Criminological Psy-
chology, 11, 297–312.
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Morris, P. M. (1997). Individual differences in hand movements during deception.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 87–102.
Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving
others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 899–909.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006b). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 141–142.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (in press). Increasing cognitive load in interviews to detect deceit.
In B. Milne, S. Savage, & T. Williamson (Eds.), International developments in investigative inter-
viewing. Uffculme: Willan Publishing.
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2003). Deception detection. In P. W. Halligan, C. Bass, & D. A. Oakley (Eds.),
Malingering and illness deception (pp. 348–362). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2006). Criteria-based content analysis: An empirical test of its underlying processes.
Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 337–349.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2006c). Information-gathering vs accusatory interview style: Individual
differences in respondents’ experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 589–599.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Leal, S., Milne, B., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate
lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32,
Vrij, A., Semin, G. R., & Bull, R. (1996). Insight into behaviour during deception. Human Communication
Research, 22, 544–562.
Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seemann, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying
lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755–744.
Walczyk, J. J., Schwartz, J. P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M., & Zha, P. (2005). Lying person-to-person
about live events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58, 141–170.
Wallbott, H. G., & Scherer, K. R. (1991). Stress specifics: Differential effects of coping style, gender, and
type of stressor on automatic arousal, facial expression, and subjective feeling.
Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 147–156.
White, C. H., & Burgoon, J. K. (2001). Adaptation and communicative design: Patterns of interaction in
truthful and deceptive conversations. Human Communication Research, 27, 9–37.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of
deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–57).
New York: Academic Press.
J Nonverbal Behav
... Karson et al. (1981) rejected an effect of mouth movements. In certain speaking conditions, locution does not imply any SBR increase (Descroix et al., 2018;Fukuda, 2001;Leal & Vrij, 2008. ...
... Within the context of conversation, the observed SBRs, which get higher overall, tend to be erroneously attributed to a communication function only (e.g., Oertel et al., 2011). Correlatively, a protagonist who blinks little within a conversation can be suspected of being little involved indeed: as a listener, s/he may not process the received messages; as an emitter, s/ he may be open to more important external attention, and refrain from blinking, as when lying (Fukuda, 2001;Leal & Vrij, 2008). ...
Full-text available
Why do eye-blinks activate during conversation? We manipulated informational content and communicative intent exchanged within dyads. By comparison to a silent situation, both emitters and receivers increased their blink rate when the former delivered a treasure hunt route to the latter. When the previously known route was repeated, or when the alphabet was reeled off within the same dyads, the receiver did not increase the rate, although the emitter did. The emitter’s rate increased as well when formulating the route not vocally but silently in an inner voice; none reacted when the emitter was really silent. Therefore, the high rates of spontaneous blinking commonly observed during a conversation can be explained outside of a bilateral communication function. It seems primarily related to individual cognitive processing of afferent or efferent information. The speaker blinks when handling the speech; the listener blinks only when taking heed of a useful content.
... The blink rate has been linked to attention in several circumstances and varies according to mental activities. Blinks are perceived as communicative signals in human face-to-face interaction, directly influence speakers' communicative behavior in this context [12] and can be used to distinguish liars from truth-tellers [13]. An increase of the eye-blink rate has been correlated with a decrease of attention, and vice versa [14][15][16]. ...
Full-text available
Eye blinks provoke a loss of visual information. However, we are not constantly making conscious decisions about the appropriate moment to blink. The presence or absence of eye blinks also denotes levels of attention. We presented three movies with the exact same narrative but different styles of editing and recorded participants’ eye blinks. We found that moments of increased or decreased eye blinks by viewers coincided with the same content in the different movie styles. The moments of increased eye blinks corresponded to those when the actor leaves the scene and when the movie repeats the same action for a while. The moments of decreased eye blinks corresponded to actions where visual information was crucial to proper understanding of the scene presented. According to these results, viewers’ attention is more related to narrative content than to the style of editing when watching movies.
Le Clignement Spontané des yeux (CS) se distingue du clignement volontaire et du clignement reflexe. Les variations du taux de CS (TCS) ne sont pas expliquées par la seule nécessité de lubrifier la cornée. Des baisses de TCS ont été corrélées avec l’attention, la concentration et la perception visuelle, des hausses de TCS avec la mémorisation et la parole. L’augmentation du TCS observée durant la conversation, a été attribuée à un mécanisme méta-langagier destiné à organiser les échanges et ponctuer le discours entre partenaires. La présente thèse relativise le rôle du CS dans la communication humaine. En effet nos deux premières études (Article 1 et 2) montrent que les variations du CS entre partenaires (des mères avec leur nourrisson) ne sont pas mimétiques ni même l’effet d’un entrainement entre partenaires. Au contraire nous montrons (Article 3, Expérience 1) que le CS dépendrait d’abord d’un mécanisme individuel de traitement de l’information. La fonction interpersonnelle de communication du CS serait donc subsidiaire (Article 3, Expérience2) ; le CS serait essentiellement relié à des processus cognitifs individuels (unilatéraux), utiles à la communication mais dédiés à une fonction plus générale de gestion d’information. Pour confirmer cette hypothèse, nous avons testé (de manière inédite) la variation des CS lors du traitement d’informations haptiques, avec ou sans la vision (Article 4, Expérience1). Nous montrons (Article 4, Expérience 2) que le CS émerge prioritairement de l’activation co-occurrente de processus top down (représentation mentale et intention) et bottom up (sensorialité). A l’issue de ces résultats, nous soutenons que le CS est un phénomène qui accompagne le traitement attentionnel des informations. Le CS serait le marqueur du traitement conscient des informations internes (réflexives) ou externe (sensorielles) que nous tentons d’expliquer par le modèle énactif.
Full-text available
Rozšiřující se technologické možnosti vytvářejí prostor pro detekci psychofyziologických změn a behaviorálních projevů bezkontaktními metodami. V psychologii práce se tak mimo jiné otevírá prostor pro rozšíření poznatků získaných kontaktními a invazivními metodami. Cílem příspěvku je představit design a data první pilotní studie uplatňující funkční infračervené termovizní snímání (fITI) a analýzu mimiky prostřednictvím software FaceReader při detekci úmyslného zkreslování informací. V případových studiích budou představeny naše momentální analýzy týkající se detekovatelných změn ve faciální teplotě, variabilitě tepové frekvence, celkové obličejové emoční expresi apod., k nimž během produkce zkreslených či pravdivých informací došlo. Představeny budou další plánované pilotní designy.
In this supposedly ‘scientific age’, deception detection tests have been offered as a solution to the inadequacies of the Indian criminal justice system. However, could it be possible that many of these approaches actually lack the scientific support necessary to validate their usage in any criminal justice system? The backgrounds, analysis procedure, and limitations of various psychophysiological methods will be discussed—namely the polygraph, brain-mapping, and narcoanalysis. The reliability of these methods will also be explored, and the appropriateness of their continued or prospective usage will be debated. This chapter will address the role of these approaches in the courtroom by discussing different legal cases from India where such measures were employed in trials and decision-making processes.
Clinicians have long noted that individuals with high psychopathic traits exhibit unique interpersonal style often observable during forensic interviews. Here we develop an automated approach for quantifying head dynamics during video-recorded naturalistic clinical interviews. We expected head dynamics would be related to psychopathic traits. As predicted, dwell times indicate that those with higher levels of psychopathic traits are characterized by more stationary head positions, focused directly towards the camera/interviewer, than were individuals low in psychopathic traits. These associations were primarily driven by developmental/antisocial features of psychopathy, indicating that those with severe and life-course persistent antisocial behavior exhibit more rigid and focused orienting of their head during interpersonal communication. These results encourage more research into the automated quantification of behavioral manifestations of personality to support clinical observations that psychopaths exhibit unique qualities in non-verbal interpersonal communication.
It is commonly believed that eye movements and blinks can be indicative of deception, however, there are few laboratory studies of such effects in general and no studies in real-world forensic populations in particular. Here we test the hypothesis that automated eye blink detection and blink frequency dynamics would predict trait levels of deception in a forensic sample. Participants were incarcerated male offenders (n = 125) undergoing life history interviews which were used in part to assess psychopathic personality traits using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized in part by trait dishonesty, manipulation, and pathological lying. We developed a novel automated image analyses approach using hidden Markov machines, where the assumption is that an underlying hidden process influences the observable, measurable process (i.e., deception). Consistent with hypotheses, blink dynamics were predictive of interpersonal psychopathic traits (i.e., pathological lying and conning/manipulative behavior). This study provides the first evidence that blink dynamics from a naturalistic forensic interview, may help understand individual differences in trait deception.
Full-text available
Eye blinking is an essential maintenance behaviour for many terrestrial animals, but is also a risky behaviour as the animal is unable to scan the environment and detect hazards while its eyes are temporarily closed. It is therefore likely that the length of time that the eyes are closed and the length of the gap between blinks for a species may reflect aspects of the ecology of that species, such as its social or physical environment. An earlier published study conducted a comparative study linking blinking behaviour and ecology, and detailed a dataset describing the blinking behaviour of a large number of primate species that was collected from captive animals, but the analysis presented did not control for the nonindependence of the data due to common evolutionary history. In the present study, the dataset is reanalysed using phylogenetic comparative methods, after reconsideration of the parameters describing the physical and social environments of the species. I find that blink rate is best described by the locomotion mode of a species, where species moving through arboreal environments blink least, ground-living species blink most, and species that use both environments show intermediate rates. The duration of a blink was also related to locomotion mode, and positively correlated with both mean species group size and mean species body mass, although the increase in relation to group size is small. How a species moves through the environment therefore appears to be important for determining blinking behaviour, and suggests that complex arboreal environments may require less interruption to visual attention. Given that the data were collected with captive individuals, caution is recommended for interpreting the correlations found.
Full-text available
Recently, in a number of high-profile cases, defendants who were prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced on the basis of false confessions have been exonerated through DNA evidence. As a historical matter, confession has played a prominent role in religion, in psychotherapy, and in criminal law-where it is a prosecutor's most potent weapon. In recent years, psychologists from the clinical, personality, developmental, cognitive, and social areas have brought their theories and research methods to bear on an analysis of confession evidence, how it is obtained, and what impact it has on judges, juries, and other people.
People are generally poor at detecting deceit when observing someone’s behaviour or listening to their speech. In this chapter I will discuss the major factors (pitfalls) that lead to failures in catching liars: the sixteen reasons I will present are clustered into three categories: (i) a lack of motivation to detect lies; (ii) difficulties associated with lie detection; and (iii) common errors made by lie detectors. Discussing pitfalls provides insight into how lie detectors can improve their performance (for example, by recognising common biases and avoiding common judgment errors). The second section of this chapter discusses 11 ways (opportunities) to improve lie detection skills. Within this section, I first provide five recommendations for avoiding common errors in detecting lies. Next, I discuss recent lie detection research that introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers. The recommendations are relevant in various settings, from the individual level (e.g., “Is my partner really working late?”) to the societal level (e.g., “Can we trust this suspect when he claims that he is not the serial rapist the police are searching for?”).
Prior research has shown that the rate of eye blinking is inversely related to cognitive load. In the present study, as in the prior work, some subjects were never told that their eyeblinks were being monitored. However, other subjects were deliberately informed. Each group of subjects performed both easy and difficult arithmetic. Awareness of being monitored reduced the blinking rate. However, the rate was still inversely related to difficulty of the task, even for the informed subjects. The methodological and theoretical implications of these findings were discussed.
Previous research suggests that liars are not aware that they tend to decrease their movements during deception. Moreover, it is unclear how liars will behave if someone informs them about their behavioral rigidity during deception, and to what extent several processes (tension, attempted behavioral control, and cognitive effort) are associated with deception. In the present experiment, subjects were interviewed twice. During one interview, they told the truth, and during the other interview, they lied. In the information-present condition, before both interviews, subjects were told that deception is usually associated with a decrease in movements. In the information-absent condition, no information was given. The results revealed that whereas subjects believed that they increased their movements during deception, a decrease in movements, in fact, occurred. Provision of information about deceptive behavior had no effect. The results also showed that a decrease in movements was associated with attempted control and cognitive load processes, and occurred independently from the tension experienced by deceivers.