No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Rapid judgements in assessing verbal and nonverbal cues: Their potential for deception researchers and lie detection
Abstract
In the present study it was investigated to what extent observers (i) could make rapid yet reliable and valid judgements of the frequency of verbal and nonverbal behaviours of interviewees (liars and truth tellers) and (ii) detect deceit after making these rapid judgements. Five observers watched 52 videoclips of 26 liars and 26 truth tellers. The findings revealed that rapid judgements were reliable and valid. They also revealed that observers were able to detect truths and lies well above the level of chance after making these rapid judgements (74% accuracy rate was found). The implications of these findings for deception researchers and lie detection are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
... It would therefore seem essential that, in future, CBCA training packages pay more attention to decision rules. That is, trainees should be given more guidance regarding how to relate their ratings of criteria to their overall decisions concerning the truthfulness of the statements (a technique shown to be successful by Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004). ...
... Previous research concerning implicit methods of detecting deception has shown that participants are better able to distinguish between the truth and fabrication when they are not asked explicitly to make the decision truth or lie (DePaulo, Anderson, & Cooper, 1999;Vrij, Edward, & Bull, 2001;Vrij et al., 2004). For example, Vrij et al. (2004) firstly asked participants to judge the frequency of occurrence of a number of verbal and nonverbal behaviours (including CBCA criteria) occurring during a statement and no mention was made of credibility at this stage. ...
... Previous research concerning implicit methods of detecting deception has shown that participants are better able to distinguish between the truth and fabrication when they are not asked explicitly to make the decision truth or lie (DePaulo, Anderson, & Cooper, 1999;Vrij, Edward, & Bull, 2001;Vrij et al., 2004). For example, Vrij et al. (2004) firstly asked participants to judge the frequency of occurrence of a number of verbal and nonverbal behaviours (including CBCA criteria) occurring during a statement and no mention was made of credibility at this stage. Subsequently, the participants were most accurate in their credibility judgements when they were asked to make a decision regarding truthfulness based purely on the frequency ratings they had made. ...
This experiment was designed to assess, for the first time, the effects of training police officers, social workers and students in Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) in an attempt to increase lie detection accuracy. A within-subjects design was implemented. Participants rated the truthfulness of a maximum of four statements before training in CBCA and rated the truthfulness of a different set of four statements after training. The raters were only exposed to the written transcripts of the communicators. Two thirds of the statements utilized were truthful and one third were based on fabrications. Before training, there were no significant differences in detection accuracy between the police officers (66% accuracy), the social workers (72% accuracy) and the students (56% accuracy). After training, the social workers were 77% accurate and significantly more accurate than the police officers (55%) and the students (61%). However, none of the three groups of raters significantly improved their lie detection accuracy after training, in fact, the police officers performed significantly poorer. Overall, police officers were significantly more confident than social workers and lay persons regardless of accuracy. Further, participants were most confident when labelling a statement truthful regardless of whether or not this was the correct decision. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
... Applying them to a text corpus (written or oral) requires a careful analysis of all details of a statement, either by reading a transcript (or listening to an audio/videotape) repeatedly or taking notes. Normally, this requires a conscious, analytic approach-but see the study by Vrij et al. (2004) who have shown that rapid judgments may also catch some of these cues, which might be useful as a preliminary screening. ...
... As far as we can tell, onlyReinhard et al. (2013a, Exp. 5) (Table 1, Section II) made such an attempt. However, the pattern of objectively diagnostic and nondiagnostic cues in that study seems to reflect stereotypical cues and is also at odds with research on verbal content cues to deception(Amado et al., 2016) and the study on rapid judgments byVrij et al. (2004).Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org ...
... An article by Dunbar, Jensen, Harvell-Bowman, Kelley, and Burgoon (2017) also examines the effectiveness of cues in deception detection. This research evaluated an alternative type of deception detection training called rapid judgment (RJ) coding, first proposed by Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, and Mann (2004). With RJ coding, lie detection judges are trained to focus on indirect accurate indicators of deceit, such as the amount of detail given and certain exhibited verbal and nonverbal differences, rather than to make direct credibility judgements. ...
... With RJ coding, lie detection judges are trained to focus on indirect accurate indicators of deceit, such as the amount of detail given and certain exhibited verbal and nonverbal differences, rather than to make direct credibility judgements. To test the effectiveness of RJ coding for lie detection, the researchers first prepared training materials on seven specific RJ codes and then offered coders training based on the descriptions found in Vrij et al. (2004). The RJ approach to coding suggests that when people are asked to pay attention to verbal and nonverbal cues, rather than to detect deceit, they are more accurate in their judgments (DePaulo & Morris, 2004). ...
... So what is deception? Vrij (2004) defines deception as: the deceiver intentionally transmits beliefs that he considers to be incorrect to others without warning [3]. This definition has two important components: First, deception usually occurs without prior warning, that is to say, deception is usually spontaneously generated by the deceiver, not under the instructions or clues of others. ...
... So what is deception? Vrij (2004) defines deception as: the deceiver intentionally transmits beliefs that he considers to be incorrect to others without warning [3]. This definition has two important components: First, deception usually occurs without prior warning, that is to say, deception is usually spontaneously generated by the deceiver, not under the instructions or clues of others. ...
... Deception detection in online contexts may be challenging [17] and requires consideration of linguistic patterns [22], the use of 'warrants' (connections between online and real-world identities) to confirm a sender's identity [50], 'digital footprints' and 'scent trails' to uncover malign intent [42], and adaptations of computer-mediated investigative interviewing approaches [9,15,29]. Regarding the influence of third party opinions, [36] examined the linguistic features of online reviews to identify truthful and deceptive opinions and found that truthful reviews contained more concrete and sensorial language and were more accurate about spatial information, whilst deceivers focused upon elements not directly related to the subject they were reviewing and, in contrast to previous research [35], used more positive language. ...
... This becomes further problematic when offending behavior is online and offline and individuals use aliases to reduce the likelihood of detection. The use of 'warrants' enable links to be examined between an individual's real-world and online identities [50] and deception may occur more routinely in online chat environments that enable greater anonymity, and less often in the use of email where warrants are visible but can be modified to mislead. Although examining 'warrants' may be a useful strategy for assessing credibility in low-stakes online interactions, in highstake interactions the levels of sophistication employed by groups and individuals to cover their identities and tracks are greater, as is the motivation, level of resources and ability to manipulate. ...
... Our second contribution in this paper is to analyze not only dishonesty accuracy detection but also honesty accuracy detection. There is a consensus that VCs facilitate the detection of dishonesty (e.g., Vrij et al., 2010) in two ways: VCs in addition to NVCs (e.g., Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991;Vrij et al., 2004) and a higher amount of VCs improve accuracy in detecting dishonesty (e.g., Anderson et al., 1999;Feeley and Young, 2000). So, we can affirm that dishonesty is better detected with more information and using VCs. ...
According to the previous literature, only a few papers found better accuracy than a chance to detect dishonesty, even when more information and verbal cues (VCs) improve precision in detecting dishonesty. A new classification of dishonesty profiles has recently been published, allowing us to study if this low success rate happens for all people or if some people have higher predictive ability. This paper aims to examine if (dis)honest people can detect better/worse (un)ethical behavior of others. With this in mind, we designed one experiment using videos from one of the most popular TV shows in the UK where contestants make a (dis)honesty decision upon gaining or sharing a certain amount of money. Our participants from an online MTurk sample ( N = 1,582) had to determine under different conditions whether the contestants would act in an (dis)honest way. Three significant results emerged from these two experiments. First, accuracy in detecting (dis)honesty is not different than chance, but submaximizers (compared to maximizers) and radical dishonest people (compare to non-radicals) are better at detecting honesty, while there is no difference in detecting dishonesty. Second, more information and VCs improve precision in detecting dishonesty, but honesty is better detected using only non-verbal cues (NVCs). Finally, a preconceived honesty bias improves specificity (honesty detection accuracy) and worsens sensitivity (dishonesty detection accuracy).
... However, a closer inspection of their meta-analyzed studies reveals substantial heterogeneity in both the direction and magnitude of the relationship. While some studies find that slower responses are perceived as insincere , others find no statistically significant effect in either direction (Vrij et al., 2004;Zuckerman et al., 1981), some find a curvilinear relationship between response speed and sincerity (Baskett & Freedle, 1974;Boltz, 2005), and some even find that slower responses are perceived as more sincere than faster ones (Kraut & Lewis, 1982). ...
Evaluating other people's sincerity is a ubiquitous and important part of social interactions. Fourteen experiments (total N = 7,565; 10 preregistered; 11 in the main article, three in the online supplemental materials; with U.S. American and British members of the public, and French students) show that response speed is an important cue on which people base their sincerity inferences. Specifically, people systematically judged slower (vs. faster) responses as less sincere for a range of scenarios from trivial daily conversations to high stakes situations such as police interrogations. Our findings suggest that this is because slower responses are perceived to be the result of the responder suppressing automatic, truthful thoughts, and fabricating a novel answer. People also seem to have a rich lay theory of response speed, which takes into account a variety of situational factors. For instance, the effect of response delay on perceived sincerity is smaller if the response is socially undesirable, or if it can be attributed to mental effort. Finally, we showed that explicit instructions to ignore response speed can reduce the effect of response speed on judgments on sincerity. Our findings not only help ascertain the role of response speed in interpersonal inference making processes, but also carry important practical implication. In particular, the present study highlights the potential effects that may be observed in judicial settings, because the response speed of innocent suspects may mislead people to judge them as insincere and hence guilty. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
... Por una parte, los indicadores de tipo no verbal han sido distribuidos en tres grandes grupos: los relacionados con la activación cortical como ilustradores, adaptadores con objetos o propioceptivos (DePaulo et al., 2003;Sporer & Schwandt, 2007); los activados por el sistema nervioso autónomo y fuera del control voluntario, como nerviosismo o sudoración (DePaulo et al., 2003;Vrij et al., 2008;Vrij et al., 2010) y aquellos que pueden indicar un incremento de la carga cognitiva como el descenso en el parpadeo, el incremento de pausas o la falta de sincronía. Por la otra, los de tipo verbal han sido extraídos tanto de herramientas concretas como el CBCA, por ejemplo la estructura lógica y el engranaje contextual, como de estudios específicos como ocurre con las respuestas repetitivas o dubitativas (Amado, Arce, & Fariña, 2015;Steller & Köhnken, 1989;Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, & Granhag, 2013). En el IVNVE se incluyen tanto indicadores de sinceridad que darían credibilidad al relato -la estructura lógica, los detalles o el engranaje contextual-como aquellos que puedan indicar engaño, como el discurso dubitativo o repetitivo y el planteamiento por parte del entrevistado de preguntas no aclaratorias (ejemplos: ¿qué?, ¿eh?, ¿Cómo?, ¿Me puede repetir?, ¿Por qué me hace estas preguntas?). ...
A lo largo de este capítulo se presenta el proyecto ICARO (Identificación de Conductas Anómalas y Reacción Operativa). Se detalla brevemente la investigación realizada sobre la detección de conductas anómalas y la detección de engaño en el contexto aeroportuario. Se acompaña además de un apartado dedicado a la formación de analistas de comportamiento (BDOs; Behaviour Detection Officers) donde se enumeran algunos de los contenidos considerados importantes y que deben ser incluidos en la fase de formación.
... Obrazovanje i trening policijskih službenika ili drugih službenika i stručnjaka koji vrše procenjivanje (carinici, zatvorski službenici, sudije, psiholozi itd.) trebalo bi da ima pozitivan uticaj na tačnost razlikovanja osoba koje lažu od onih koji govore istinu. Studije koje su sproveli istaknuti istraživači (Ekman, 1991;Vrij, Edward, Roberts & Bull 2000;Vrij, Evans, Akehurst & Mann 2004;De Paulo, Lassiter & Stone 1982;DeTurck, 1991;Köhneken 1987), podržavaju napred navedeno mišljenje. ...
U radu je prezentovano istraživanje u kome je učestvovalo 90 subjekata,, studenata Kriminalističko policijske akademije u Zemunu. Deset studenta prve godine studija (6 mladića i 4 devojke) učestovalo je u prvoj fazi u kojoj je pripremljen video materijal koji je kasnije korišćen u samom istraživanju. Uzorak ispitanika činilo je 80 studenata treće i četvrte godine (58 muškaraca i 22 žene starosti između 21-25 godina), koji su imali zadatak da nakon gledanja 10 video klipova (od kojih 5 prikazuju osobu koja govori istinu, a 5 osobu koja govori laž) procene učestalost neverbalnih ponašanja osoba sa snimaka, kao i da daju svoje mišljenje o tome da li je osoba govorila istinu ili laž. Rezultati istraživanja pokazali su da je uspešnost studenata Kriminalističko policijske akademije u proceni istinitosti iskaza bila manja od procene na osnovu slučajnog pogađanja. Utvrđeno je da među ispitanicima postoje izražene individualne razlike u prepoznavanju laganja. Pokazano je da ispitanici koji su uspešniji u proceni istinitosti lažnog iskaza procenjuju da su samododirivanje, pokreti šake, greške u govoru i ilustracije učestaliji oblici neverbalnog ponašanja prilikom laganja, a da su pokreti trupa i pokreti nogu manje učestali u ovakvim situacijama. Ispitanici koji su tačniji u proceni istinitog iskaza procenjuju da su pokreti nogu, oklevanje u govoru i pokreti glave učestaliji, a samododirivanje manje učestalo neverbalno ponašanje kod osoba koje govore istinu. Pokazalo se da ispitanici veruju da se oni koji lažu ponašaju nervoznije od osoba koje govore istinu, što odgovara stereotipnim shvatanjima o neverbalnim indikatorima laganja. Rezultati bi mogli da se iskoriste kao osnova za kreiranje programa edukacije u prepoznavanju laganja.
... Some studies show the lowest inter-rater agreement on this criterion Strömwall, Bengtsson, Leander, & Granhag, 2004), or next-to-lowest . Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, and Mann (2004) even failed to find a reliable inter-rater agreement score for cognitive operations, and discuss that it may be difficult for raters to grasp the meaning of this criterion. For many studies, the operationalisation of this criterion is not documented, making it difficult to know whether the same characteristic is being rated across studies. ...
Stories that the audience can influence (such as computer games and other interactive multimedia), in contrast to 'traditional' stories (such as books and cinema), present a challenge to fields which take narrative (story) as their study object. What is the difference between these two kinds of stories? Earlier theories have focused on differences in media, structure, or the audience's physical actions. In part I of this book (the theoretical framework), it is argued that earlier approaches fail to capture the difference between these two kinds of stories because they have neglected the role of cognition. A classification of participatory stories is presented that argues for the necessity of cognition among the classificatory criteria. The concept of participatory stories is defined as fictional stories in which the audience can choose between potential event sequences. The manner in which participation is performed, what actions or sense modalities are used, is argued to be immaterial. Participatory stories involve a common cognitive ability and can take many forms, both computerised and non-computerised, such as role-playing, children's pretence play, and computer games. In Part II of the book, the proposed cognitive difference is investigated in explorative empirical studies, where the idea is to study cognition through language. Eight participants were exposed to events from five source conditions with varying degrees of participation and fictionality: an interactive fiction computer game, a printed non-participatory version of the computer game, a printed short story, real personal experience, and practical laboratory tasks. Participants were later interviewed about these events while being audio-visually recorded. The transcriptions are analysed from three main viewpoints: Analysis of spatial cognition show that people who used a participatory story (as opposed to a short story) spontaneously constructed elaborate spatial mental representations of the story world. Investigation of reality monitoring memory qualities of events reveal that these did not differ across the five conditions. Analysis of how perspective on events was manifested in speech show that people adopted an outside, distant perspective on events from the short story. In contrast, on events from a participatory story, an inside, close perspective was adopted, similar to that of real events from personal experience.
... One unlikely defense against skewed nonverbal presentations is the snap judgment. Nonverbal behavior is often decoded early and quickly during interactions ( DePaulo, 1992), and researchers have found, for example, that deception is best detected rapidly ( Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004) before a person's "acting" takes effect. Audiences also have defenses against bad acting: Self-presentations that do not seem genuine are not effective. ...
... Lying has been widely examined in the context of many behavioral measures, such as RTs (Verschuere et al., 2011;Vrij et al., 2008;Walczyk et al., 2003Walczyk et al., , 2009Williams et al., 2013), facial (Ekman, O'Sullivan, Friesen, & Scherer, 1991;Feldman, Jenkins, & Popoola, 1979;Wojciechowski, Stolarski, & Matthews, 2014), bodily (Gamer, Bauermann, Stoeter, & Vossel, 2007;Gödert, Rill, & Vossel, 2001), vocal (Bogaard, Meijer, Vrij, & Merckelbach, 2016;Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall, Larrance, & Rosenthal, 1979), linguistic (Hauch, Blandón-Gitlin, Masip, & Sporer, 2015;Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003), paralinguistic (Vrij, Edward, Roberts, & Bull, 2000;Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004), and textual measures (Lee, Welker, & Odom, 2009;Zhou, Burgoon, Nunamaker, & Twitchell, 2004). Most of previous research examined lying in terms of its detection by other people (DePaulo et al., 2003;Hartwig & Bond, 2011). ...
Manipulations that induce disfluency during encoding generally produce lower memory predictions for the disfluent condition than for the fluent condition. Similar to other manipulations of disfluency, generating lies takes longer and requires more mental effort than does telling the truth; hence, a manipulation of lie generation might produce patterns similar to other types of fluency for memory predictions. The current study systematically investigates the effect of a lie-generation manipulation on both actual and predicted memory performance. In a series of experiments, participants told the truth or generated plausible lies to general knowledge questions and made item-by-item predictions about their subsequent memory performance during encoding, followed by a free recall test. Participants consistently predicted their memory performance to be higher for truth than for lies (Experiments 1 through 4), despite their typically superior actual memory performance for lies than for the truth (Experiments 1 through 3), producing double dissociations between memory and metamemory. Moreover, lying led to longer response latencies than did telling the truth, showing that generating lies is in fact objectively more disfluent. An additional experiment compared memory predictions for truth and lie trials via a scenario about the lie-generation manipulation used in the present study, which revealed superior memory predictions of truth than of lies, providing proof for a priori beliefs about the effects of lying on predicted memory (Experiment 5). The effects of the current lie-generation manipulation on metamemory are discussed in light of experience-based and theory-based processes on making judgments of learning. Theoretical and practical implications of this experimental paradigm are also considered. (PsycINFO Database Record
... However, perhaps surprisingly, it appears that research using RM and CBCA has systematically failed to address whether and how to handle a possible key moderator, that of word-count. This is despite the fact that word-count per se has been considered by many to be a cue to deception in its own right, that is, truthful accounts tend to be longer (Dilmon, 2009;Driskell, Blickensderfer, & Salas, 2013;Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2012;Santtila, Roppola, & Niemi, 1998;Strömwall, Bengtsson, Leander, & Granhag, 2004;Strömwall & Granhag, 2005;Vrij et al., 2000;Vrij, Evans, Akehurst & Mann, 2004). Indeed, word-count has been used to define the CBCA criterion quantity of details, that is, more details are found in genuine accounts (Lamb et al., 1997;Santtila, Roppola, Runtti, & Niemi, 2000). ...
Although a number of methods have been proposed to control for word-count differences between truthful and deceptive accounts, there is no uniformity amongst researchers using the Reality Monitoring criteria as to when, why or how to standardise for word-count differences. Another factor that also has received little attention in the literature is whether the number of others present when a person is providing an account alters the lexical profile of accounts such that Reality Monitoring scores are affected. To investigate these issues, 62 autobiographical statements, 31 truthful and 31 deceptive, were generated under three conditions, no person present, one, and two persons present, and were analysed before and after standardisation for word-count and duration. Results showed that the criteria successfully discriminated between truthful and deceptive accounts when no attempt to control for word-count was made and, to a lesser extent, when accounts were standardised for duration; however, they failed to discriminate after accounts had been standardised for length. The presence of others did not affect the ability to distinguish between truthful and deceptive accounts. The results highlight the difficulties involved in developing normative standardisation criteria which could be used in the field to classify individual or small numbers of cases.
Full text at: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/MXIJBTKSqWxFWCFUvVCg/full
... This research tests an alternative type of deception detection training called "rapid judgment coding" (referred to here as RJ coding) proposed by Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, and Mann (2004), in which judges are trained to focus on "indirect" accurate indicators of deceit (such as the amount of detail given and certain verbal and nonverbal differences exhibited), rather than make direct credibility judgments, so as to improve the accuracy of judgments. 1 Our purpose in this research is to test this method and assess the generalizability of their findings. ...
Rapid Judgments (RJs) are quick assessments based on indirect verbal and nonverbal cues that are known to be associated with deception. RJs are advantageous because they eliminate the need for expensive detection equipment and only require minimal training for coders with relatively accurate judgments. Results of testing on two different datasets showed that trained coders were reliably making RJs after watching both long and short interaction segments but their judgments were not more accurate than the expert interviewers. The RJs did not discriminate between truth and deception as hypothesized. This raises more questions about the conditions under which making RJs from verbal and nonverbal cues achieves accurate detection of veracity.
... Also, as in a previous study (Lev-Ari & Keysar, 2012), observers might have expected nonnative speakers to communicate poorly and paid less attention to the details provided. Detail is an important factor in successful lie detection decisions (Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004). If observers disregarded beginner English speakers' message content (e.g., details) due to their heavy accents, then their accuracies would suffer; in fact, that is what we found. ...
We examined the impact of interviewees’ language proficiencies on observers’ lie detection performance. Observers (N = 132) were randomly assigned to make deception judgments about interviewees (N = 56) from Four proficiency groups (i.e., native, advanced, intermediate, and beginner English speakers). Discrimination between lie- and truth-tellers was poorest when observers judged beginner English speakers compared to interviewees from any other proficiency group. Observers were also less likely to exhibit a truth-bias toward nonnative than native English speakers. These results suggest that interviewing individuals in their nonnative languages can create inequalities in the justice system.
... Some of these changes include descriptions of feelings, reproductions of speech, amount of detail, logical inconsistencies, plausible descriptions, and spontaneous corrections (Vrij, Edward, Roberts, & Bull, 2000). While the use of vocal or verbal analyses has been used to detect lies with some degree of success, such analyses are unfortunately time-consuming and require intensive training for analysis and scoring (Vrij, 2000;Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004). Therefore, while the analysis of verbal reports might be useful in some cases, real-time detection of liars is not feasible and the real-world application of such techniques will likely be limited to special circumstances such as criminal investigations. ...
Lies and deception occur regularly in the workplace during the application and interview process, as excuses for failures and missed deadlines, or as excuses for absenteeism. Undoubtedly, this workplace deception results in tremendous financial losses for companies. Generally, people believe that they can use behavioral cues to detect when others are lying to them. This study examined the behavioral cues that managers use to detect when others are lying. Managers (N = 120) completed a survey in which they indicated the degree to which ten separate behavioral cues increase, decrease, or stay the same when people lie to them. For the most part, managers held incorrect beliefs about the behavioral changes that typically accompany lying. The managers' beliefs about lying behavior were compared to the beliefs held by non-managerial employees. The results of this comparison indicated that managers and non-managers hold similar incorrect beliefs about the behavioral changes that occur when people lie, although managers are more confident in their ability to detect lies.
... Overall, the MCQ and subsequent modifications (e.g., were used to determine the properties of memory that are relied upon in making reality monitoring decisions (see Table 1 for the listing of RM criteria). In addition, several studies have extended the reality monitoring approach using imagined events to apply to studies of false memories and deception (e.g., Porter et al., 1999;Sporer, 1997;Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004). Vrij, Akehurst, et al. (2004a) argued that this framework could be applied to truthful (experienced) and fabricated (imagined) events. ...
In forensic settings, decision-makers are continually challenged with evaluating the credibility of reports of victimization. Unfortunately, judgments concerning the truthfulness of allegations can be misguided, and few standardized approaches to discriminating the veracity of such reports exist. In many cases, evaluators heavily rely on erroneous cues to deception, such as gut instinct, witness demeanor, eye contact, witness confidence, and whether a claim fits with the "typical" crime victimization scenario. As such, empirical literature has emphasized a focus on verbal behaviours (including content) as a function of veracity, as these may be less susceptible to interpretive bias. When confronted with claims of victimization, analysis of the content of the alleged victims' statement is of utmost importance for investigators, and may be the only source of evidence available. While advocating a reliance on empirical evidence, we observe that few studies concerning truthful and false allegations of victimization within the criminal justice system have been conducted; yet, a multitude of legal cases have been consumed by sorting fact from fiction within allegations. In this paper, we provide an overview of empirical research on the characteristics of true and false allegations of trauma. The general consensus from extant literature is that truthful claims of trauma contain an abundance of detail, emotional components, perceptual detail, unstructured production, contextual embedding, spontaneous corrections, unusual details, descriptions of interactions, and admissions of lack of memory, relative to false allegations. However, recent evidence suggests that these features may not be maintained over time, such that discriminating the truthfulness of historical claims of trauma may be particularly difficult. The concern over how these claims are maintained in memory over time is addressed, and is especially relevant given that verbal statements typically are provided as evidence in legal cases over extended durations. In addition, empirical evidence may conflict with pre-existing beliefs of law enforcement officers. We review current methods that have been utilized in detecting deception in these contexts, including Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), Reality Monitoring (RM), Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), Memory Assessment Procedure (MAP), and the Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) system. The purpose, procedures, relevant studies, and discrimination rates concerning each form of content analysis are discussed. We describe the factors that influence the content of narrative reports of trauma, as well as the limitations they may impose on successful discrimination. Finally, we conclude by reviewing the effectiveness of existing statement analysis techniques, the implications of these methods for eliciting allegations of trauma, and the importance of developing successful discrimination tools to better identify false allegations.
... This instruction meant that the observers in Conditions 1 and 2 were asked to judge detail globally and subjectively, rather than objectively through counting every single detail. Research has demonstrated that observers can make accurate subjective judgments of the number of details that appear in a statement (Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004). ...
Group interviewing provides useful insight into the social indicators of deception. The present study investigated turn-taking as a technique for enhancing novel cues to deceit. "Turn-taking" is a technique whereby the interviewer states which of the 2 interviewees is to answer the question, and then intervenes every 20 s by stopping whichever of the interviewees is responding and asking the other interviewee in the pair to continue from the point in which their partner was stopped. In the present experiment, truth tellers were real couples who had been in relationship for at least 1 year and cohabiting. Lying pairs were friends who pretended to be in a relationship for at least 1 year and cohabiting. All "couples" were interviewed together in their pairs about their real or fictitious relationship. It was found that when forced to turn-take, truth-telling pairs were significantly more able to continue on from one another, whereas lying pairs were significantly more likely to repeat what their partner last said before continuing. Additionally, lying pairs waited before speaking after being told to turn-take significantly more than truth-telling pairs. A subsequent lie detection study revealed that these 3 turn-taking cues improved people's ability to accurately detect deceit considerably. Implications for simultaneous interviewing are discussed.
... This is supported by experimental research in which the nonverbal and verbal cues of truth tellers and liars were examined. That research has demonstrated that the best classifications of truths and lies are made when both sets of cues are taken into account (Porter & Yuille, 1996;Porter et al., 1999;Vrij, Akehurst, Soukara, & Bull, 2004a;Vrij, Edward, Roberts, & Bull, 2000;Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004). Thus, attendance to multiple cues from words and the visual channel should provide the lie catcher with better ammunition for the task at hand . ...
The question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such guidance in the present article. The article consists of two parts. The first section focuses on pitfalls to avoid and outlines the major factors that lead to failures in catching liars. Sixteen reasons are clustered into three categories: (a) a lack of motivation to detect lies (because accepting a fabrication might sometimes be more tolerable or pleasant than understanding the truth), (b) difficulties associated with lie detection, and (c) common errors made by lie detectors. We will argue that the absence of nonverbal and verbal cues uniquely related to deceit (akin Pinocchio's growing nose), the existence of typically small differences between truth tellers and liars, and the fact that liars actively try to appear credible contribute to making lie detection a difficult task. Other factors that add to difficulty is that lies are often embedded in truths, that lie detectors often do not receive adequate feedback about their judgments and therefore cannot learn from their mistakes, and that some methods to detect lies violate conversation rules and are therefore difficult to apply in real life. The final factor to be discussed in this category is that some people are just very good liars. The common errors lie detectors make that we have identified are examining the wrong cues (in part, because professionals are taught these wrong cues); placing too great an emphasis on nonverbal cues (in part, because training encourages such emphasis); tending to too-readily interpret certain behaviors, particularly signs of nervousness, as diagnostic of deception; placing too great an emphasis on simplistic rules of thumb; and neglecting inter- and intrapersonal differences. We also discuss two final errors: that many interview strategies advocated by police manuals can impair lie detection, and that professionals tend to overestimate their ability to detect deceit. The second section of this article discusses opportunities for maximizing one's chances of detecting lies and elaborates strategies for improving one's lie-detection skills. Within this section, we first provide five recommendations for avoiding the common errors in detecting lies that we identified earlier in the article. Next, we discuss a relatively recent wave of innovative lie-detection research that goes one step further and introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers by exploiting their different psychological states. In this part of the article, we encourage lie detectors to use an information-gathering approach rather than an accusatory approach and to ask liars questions that they have not anticipated. We also encourage lie detectors to ask temporal questions-questions related to the particular time the interviewee claims to have been at a certain location-when a scripted answer (e.g., "I went to the gym") is expected. For attempts to detect lying about opinions, we introduce the devil's advocate approach, in which investigators first ask interviewees to argue in favor of their personal view and then ask them to argue against their personal view. The technique is based on the principle that it is easier for people to come up with arguments in favor than against their personal view. For situations in which investigators possess potentially incriminating information about a suspect, the "strategic use of evidence" technique is introduced. In this technique, interviewees are encouraged to discuss their activities, including those related to the incriminating information, while being unaware that the interviewer possesses this information. The final technique we discuss is the "imposing cognitive load" approach. Here, the assumption is that lying is often more difficult than truth telling. Investigators could increase the differences in cognitive load that truth tellers and liars experience by introducing mentally taxing interventions that impose additional cognitive demand. If people normally require more cognitive resources to lie than to tell the truth, they will have fewer cognitive resources left over to address these mentally taxing interventions when lying than when truth telling. We discuss two ways to impose cognitive load on interviewees during interviews: asking them to tell their stories in reverse order and asking them to maintain eye contact with the interviewer. We conclude the article by outlining future research directions. We argue that research is needed that examines (a) the differences between truth tellers and liars when they discuss their future activities (intentions) rather than their past activities, (b) lies told by actual suspects in high-stakes situations rather than by university students in laboratory settings, and (c) lies told by a group of suspects (networks) rather than individuals. An additional line of fruitful and important research is to examine the strategies used by truth tellers and liars when they are interviewed. As we will argue in the present article, effective lie-detection interview techniques take advantage of the distinctive psychological processes of truth tellers and liars, and obtaining insight into these processes is thus vital for developing effective lie-detection interview tools.
... Overall, the MCQ and subsequent modifications (e.g., were used to determine the properties of memory that are relied upon in making reality monitoring decisions (see Table 1 for the listing of RM criteria). In addition, several studies have extended the reality monitoring approach using imagined events to apply to studies of false memories and deception (e.g., Porter et al., 1999;Sporer, 1997;Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004). Vrij, Akehurst, et al. (2004a) argued that this framework could be applied to truthful (experienced) and fabricated (imagined) events. ...
In forensic settings, decision-makers are continually challenged with evaluating the
credibility of reports of victimization. Unfortunately, judgments concerning the
truthfulness of allegations can be misguided, and few standardized approaches to
discriminating the veracity of such reports exist. In many cases, evaluators heavily rely
on erroneous cues to deception, such as gut instinct, witness demeanor, eye contact,
witness confidence, and whether a claim fits with the “typical” crime victimization
scenario. As such, empirical literature has emphasized a focus on verbal behaviours
(including content) as a function of veracity, as these may be less susceptible to
interpretive bias. When confronted with claims of victimization, analysis of the content of
the alleged victims’ statement is of utmost importance for investigators, and may be the
only source of evidence available. While advocating a reliance on empirical evidence, we
observe that few studies concerning truthful and false allegations of victimization within
the criminal justice system have been conducted; yet, a multitude of legal cases have
been consumed by sorting fact from fiction within allegations. In this paper, we provide
an overview of empirical research on the characteristics of true and false allegations of
trauma. The general consensus from extant literature is that truthful claims of trauma
contain an abundance of detail, emotional components, perceptual detail, unstructured
production, contextual embedding, spontaneous corrections, unusual details, descriptions
of interactions, and admissions of lack of memory, relative to false allegations. However,
recent evidence suggests that these features may not be maintained over time, such that
discriminating the truthfulness of historical claims of trauma may be particularly difficult.
The concern over how these claims are maintained in memory over time is addressed,and is especially relevant given that verbal statements typically are provided as evidence
in legal cases over extended durations. In addition, empirical evidence may conflict with
pre-existing beliefs of law enforcement officers. We review current methods that have
been utilized in detecting deception in these contexts, including Criteria-Based Content
Analysis (CBCA), Reality Monitoring (RM), Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN),
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), Memory Assessment Procedure (MAP), and
the Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) system. The purpose,
procedures, relevant studies, and discrimination rates concerning each form of content
analysis are discussed. We describe the factors that influence the content of narrative
reports of trauma, as well as the limitations they may impose on successful
discrimination. Finally, we conclude by reviewing the effectiveness of existing statement
analysis techniques, the implications of these methods for eliciting allegations of trauma,
and the importance of developing successful discrimination tools to better identify false
allegations.
... Training Watch list of possible fraudulent manipulations Grazioli and Wang (2001) No significant difference was found between the group that received the intervention and the one that did not. Autrey, 2001;Biros, 1998;Biros et al. (2002) No significant effect on detection success Tilley (2005) Training (one week before task) had significant effect on deception detection accuracy Training in cue recognition Garrido et al. (2004); Vrij et al. (2004) Training people how to identify and classify deceptive behaviors increased their ability to detect deception, Biros, 1998;Biros et al. (2002) Just-in-time training + warningresulted in increased detection success but at the cost of increased false alarms Training + Warning Tilley (2005) No significant effect on deception detection accuracy Warning Biros, 1998;Biros et al. (2002); George, Marett, and Tilley (2004) Warning resulted in better detection success without increasing false alarms Explicit verbal warning ; Marett and George (2005); Tilley (2005) Warning had no effect on deception detection accuracy FTC pamphlet on Internet fraud Grazioli and Wang (2001) No significant difference was found between the group that received the intervention and the one that did not. ...
... Although never examined, we predict that it is impossible for investigators to carry out a CBCA assessment in real time due to the difficulty in spotting CBCA criteria (Vrij, 2008). Investigators can make RM assessments in real time (Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004) but we believe that it is easier for investigators to count verifiable details in real time than to make RM assessments. This makes the verifiability approach easy to apply. ...
SUMMARY According to the verifiability approach, liars tend to provide details that cannot be checked by the investigator and awareness of this increases the investigator's ability to detect lies. In the present experiment, we replicated previous findings in a more realistic paradigm and examined the vulnerability of the verifiability approach to countermeasures. For this purpose, we collected written statements from 44 mock criminals (liars) and 43 innocents (truth tellers), whereas half of them were told before writing the statements that the verifiability of their statements will be checked. Results showed that ‘informing’ encouraged truth tellers but not liars to provide more verifiable details and increased the ability to detect lies. These findings suggest that verifiability approach is less vulnerable to countermeasures than other lie detection tools. On the contrary, in the current experiment, notifying interviewees about the mechanism of the approach benefited lie detection. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
... It was suggested that the relevant outcome feedback was a beneficial component of training of professional lie catchers in order to improve their performance. Another study which attempted to detect lying was that of Vrij et al (2004). In that study it was investigated to what extent observers; (1) could make rapid yet reliable valid judgements of the frequency of verbal and non-verbal behaviours of interviewees (liars and truth-tellers), (2) detect deceit after making these rapid judgements. ...
... For a century, technological advances in deception detection , such as the polygraph device, have held out to law enforcement agencies the promise of a dependable lie detector, only to be challenged and ultimately dismissed as the evidence against their reliability and scientific validity became incontrovertible. While some success has more recently been claimed with cognitive approaches to the problem (see for instance Vrij, Evans, Akehurst & Mann, 2004), police agencies around the world are clearly more attracted by solutions that are delivered in short training courses , rather than scientific, peer-reviewed research papers. Thus, an intense market demand and lack of (reliable) supply has led to a situation where law enforcement agencies are prepared to compromise on the scientific validity of lie detection methods in favour of convenience and availability. ...
The use of an empirically unproven system of lie detection represents an extremely dangerous risk to law enforcement agencies and governments, and a threat to civil and human rights. Nonetheless, lie detection devices and systems continue to be used by law enforcement agencies even when they are shown to be unreliable by the academic community. Clearly, scholarly concerns have had limited impact on the law enforcement community in this particular area and it is important that an attempt is made to bridge the communication gap between researchers and practitioners so that both may cooperate in the service of the broader community. As a first step, it would be useful to consider how the use of lie detection systems by police organizations might construct, or be constructed by, the set of institutional beliefs held by members about the relevant practice (i.e. interrogation). This paper therefore considers the marketing of one such system, Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), in order to discover the way in which texts aimed at law enforcement professionals contribute to or form a part of the network of beliefs, assumptions and understandings which constitute a mythology about police interviewing. It is found that critical discourse analysis can provide a framework for the study of the policy issues surrounding police investigations by exposing the mythology at an institution-wide level.
... Participants observed 52 video clips, 26 of which included intentionally deceptive behavior. The sample group was very small (n=5) but their 74% deception detection accuracy was impressive (Vrij, Evans, Akehurst, & Mann, 2004). Bond and Atoum (2000) presented the results of three research efforts involving Jordanian, Indian, and American participants. ...
Nonverbal behavior (NVB) is a key part of communication, arguably accounting for considerably more of the communicative message than that contained in verbal exchanges. This is especially true when a language barrier exists, as it does for many Soldiers stationed overseas. Universal and culture-specific NVB knowledge, skills, and attitudes (propensity) enable Soldiers to better identify opportunities to influence individuals, groups, and situations, especially when seeking cooperation or needing to identify friendly vs. hostile intent. The goal of the training proposed herein is to prepare Soldiers to predict and interpret nonverbal behavior. To develop the training framework, a literature review, a preliminary emblem extraction effort, and SME interviews and surveys were conducted. Competencies identified in NVB training include relevant attention and observation skills; cognitive processes to baseline people and scenes to develop expectancies of normative states and detect changes to a baseline; and knowledge of NVB functions and cues relevant to specific applications such as aggression and deception detection. This report describes a conceptual framework for teaching specific NVB concepts and cues designed to provide maximum benefit to Soldiers and makes specific recommendations about how such a curriculum may be taught.
Criterios de realidad del Criteria−Based Content Analysis (CBCA) en adultos: una revisión meta−analítica Resumen Antecedentes/Objetivo: El Criteria−Based Content Analysis (CBCA) constituye la herra-mienta mundialmente más utilizada para la evaluación de la credibilidad del testimonio. Originalmente fue creado para testimonios de menores víctimas de abuso sexual, gozan-do de amparo científico. Sin embargo, se ha generalizado su práctica a poblaciones de adultos y otros contextos sin un aval de la literatura para tal generalización. Método: Nos planteamos una revisión meta−analítica con el objetivo de contrastar la Hipótesis Un-deutsch y los criterios de realidad del CBCA para conocer su potencial capacidad discri-minativa entre memorias de eventos auto−experimentados y fabricados en adultos. Re-sultados: Los resultados confirman la hipótesis Undeutsch y validan el CBCA como técnica. No obstante, los resultados no son generalizables y los criterios auto−desaprobación y perdón al autor del delito no discriminan entre ambas memorias. Además, se encontró que la técnica puede ser complementada con criterios adicionales de realidad. El estudio de moderadores mostró que la eficacia discriminativa era significativamente superior en estudios de campo en casos de violencia sexual y de género. Conclusiones: Se discute la utilidad, así como las limitaciones y condiciones para la transferencia de estos resultados a la práctica forense.
Criterios de realidad del Criteria−Based Content Analysis (CBCA) en adultos: una revisión meta−analítica Resumen Antecedentes/Objetivo: El Criteria−Based Content Analysis (CBCA) constituye la herra-mienta mundialmente más utilizada para la evaluación de la credibilidad del testimonio. Originalmente fue creado para testimonios de menores víctimas de abuso sexual, gozan-do de amparo científico. Sin embargo, se ha generalizado su práctica a poblaciones de adultos y otros contextos sin un aval de la literatura para tal generalización. Método: Nos planteamos una revisión meta−analítica con el objetivo de contrastar la Hipótesis Un-deutsch y los criterios de realidad del CBCA para conocer su potencial capacidad discri-minativa entre memorias de eventos auto−experimentados y fabricados en adultos. Re-sultados: Los resultados confirman la hipótesis Undeutsch y validan el CBCA como técnica. No obstante, los resultados no son generalizables y los criterios auto−desaprobación y perdón al autor del delito no discriminan entre ambas memorias. Además, se encontró que la técnica puede ser complementada con criterios adicionales de realidad. El estudio de moderadores mostró que la eficacia discriminativa era significativamente superior en estudios de campo en casos de violencia sexual y de género. Conclusiones: Se discute la utilidad, así como las limitaciones y condiciones para la transferencia de estos resultados a la práctica forense.
We are constantly forming impressions about those around us. Social interaction depends on our understanding of interpersonal behavior - assessing one another's personality, emotions, thoughts and feelings, attitudes, deceptiveness, group memberships, and other personal characteristics through facial expressions, body language, voice and spoken language. But how accurate are our impressions and when does such accuracy matter? How is accuracy achieved and are some of us more successful at achieving it than others? This comprehensive overview presents cutting-edge research on this fast-expanding field and will be essential reading for anyone interested in the psychology of interpersonal perception. A wide range of experts in the field explore topics including age and gender effects, psychopathology, culture and ethnicity, workplaces and leadership, clinicians' skills, empathy, meta-perception, and training people to be more accurate in their perceptions of others.
The introduction of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), a verbal veracity assessment tool to assess (child) sexual abuse cases, changed the focus from nonverbal lie detection to verbal lie detection. However, CBCA has shortcomings. We first introduce CBCA together with four shortcomings. We then discuss researchers’ efforts to resolve these shortcomings. In summary, the four shortcomings and resolutions are as follows: First, CBCA-coding is complicated, but a less complicated method, called Reality Monitoring, is available. Second, all CBCA criteria are cues to truthfulness (cues more frequently reported by truth tellers than by lie tellers) and researchers are currently examining cues to deceit. Third, CBCA employs a passive interview protocol but active interview tools that exploit differences between truth tellers and lie tellers in their cognitive processing and their strategies to appear sincere have been introduced. Fourth, CBCA does not have cut-off scores for making truth/lie decisions and researchers are currently developing within-subjects measures to resolve this problem.
Groups often make better judgments than individuals, and recent research suggests that this phenomenon extends to the deception detection domain. The present research investigated whether the influence of groups enhances the accuracy of judgments, and whether group size influences deception detection accuracy. 250 participants evaluated written statements with a pre‐established detection accuracy rate of 60% in terms of veracity before viewing either the judgments and rationales of several other group members or a short summary of the written statement and revising or restating their own judgments accordingly. Participants’ second responses were significantly more accurate than their first, suggesting a small positive effect of structured groups on deception detection accuracy. Group size did not have a significant effect on detection accuracy. The present work extends our understanding of the utility of group deception detection, suggesting that asynchronous, structured groups outperform individuals at detecting deception. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The Expression of Emotion collects cutting-edge essays on emotional expression written by leading philosophers, psychologists, and legal theorists. It highlights areas of interdisciplinary research interest, including facial expression, expressive action, and the role of both normativity and context in emotion perception. Whilst philosophical discussion of emotional expression has addressed the nature of expression and its relation to action theory, psychological work on the topic has focused on the specific mechanisms underpinning different facial expressions and their recognition. Further, work in both legal and political theory has had much to say about the normative role of emotional expressions, but would benefit from greater engagement with both psychological and philosophical research. In combining philosophical, psychological, and legal work on emotional expression, the present volume brings these distinct approaches into a productive conversation.
Yearbook of the Semiotic Society of America
Wahrheit und Lüge zu unterschieden, ist in der Polizeiarbeit ein zentraler Aspekt der Tatsachenfeststellung. Während sich die inhaltliche Einschätzung der Glaubhaftigkeit weitgehend durchgesetzt hat, wird häufig angezweifelt, ob non- und paraverbale Merkmale (NPVM) diesbezüglich gültige Hinweise liefern. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wurden 205 Aussagen, die Personen in einem existentiell bedeutsamen Kontext getätigt haben, analysiert. Insgesamt differenzierte lediglich das Merkmal „Wortwiederholung“ zwischen gelogenen und wahren Aussagen. Vergleiche zwischen Weglassungs- und Erweiterungslügen zeigten, dass erstere zu kürzeren Latenzzeiten und steigenden Füllwortraten führten. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen die Bedeutung der Lügenkonstruktion sowie die Notwendigkeit praxisnaher Feldstudien.
Differentiation between the truth and deception is of central importance when verifying facts in investigative police work. While content based methods are well accepted, doubts in the use of nonverbal indicators remain. The present study analyzed 205 statements made in an existential context from which it can be shown that ‘repetition’ of words differentiate significantly between truthful or false statements. A comparison of two types of lies shows significantly shorter ‘latency periods’ and more ‘filled pauses’ when liars selectively avoiding facts, fabricating statements or altering important details. These results show the importance of distinguishing types of deception in lie detection research, and furthermore the important role field studies make in practical contexts.
Lze najít obecnou a šířeji akceptovatelnou definici lži? Můžeme obelhat sami sebe? Jak lžou děti a jak lžou dospělí? Jaké jsou verbální a neverbální projevy lhaní? Jaké jsou limity a úskalí detekce lži? Na tyto a další otázky hledá odborně podložené odpovědi ojedinělá a komplexní monografie věnovaná fenoménu lži.
Publikace nahlíží problematiku lhaní v sociálním, filozofickém, ekonomickém a neuropsychologickém kontextu. Především však zpracovává lhaní jako sociální fenomén vystupující v situacích vyžadujících odborné psychologické působení - například v psychoterapii, forenzní a školněpsychologické praxi.
Autorka seznamuje čtenáře s jevem lži z hlediska typologie, motivů, frekvence lhaní, ale i z hlediska vývojových, genderových i kulturních souvislostí. Ukazuje, jak se komplexní povaha lhaní projevuje v řeči, v chování i v prožívání. Závěrečná kapitola je věnována pozoruhodným situacím, ve kterých jsou lži ve skutečnosti důsledkem sugestibility, falešných vzpomínek či poruch osobnosti.
Monografie jistě zaujme odborníky z vědních oblastí, jako je psychologie, pedagogika, sociologie, právo, ale přínosná bude také pro učitele, rodiče, speciální pedagogy a forenzní psychology.
Background/Objective: Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) is the tool most extensively used worldwide for evaluating the veracity of a testimony. CBCA, initially designed for evaluating the testimonies of victims of child sexual abuse, has been empirically validated. Moreover, CBCA has been generalized to adult populations and other contexts though this generalization has not been endorsed by the scientific literature. Method: Thus, a meta-analysis was performed to assess the Undeutsch Hypothesis and the CBCA checklist of criteria in discerning in adults between memories of self-experienced real-life events and fabricated or fictitious memories. Results: Though the results corroborated the Undeutsch Hypothesis, and CBCA as a valid technique, the results were not generalizable, and the self-deprecation and pardoning the perpetrator criteria failed to discriminate between both memories. The technique can be complemented with additional reality criteria. The study of moderators revealed discriminating efficacy was significantly higher in filed studies on sexual offences and intimate partner violence. Conclusions: The findings are discussed in terms of their implications as well as the limitations and conditions for applying these results to forensic settings.
Intelligence from a human source, that is falsely thought to be true, is potentially more harmful than a total lack of it. In addition to the collection the veracity assessment of the gathered information is one of the most important phases of the process. Lie detection and veracity assessment methods have been studied widely but a comprehensive analysis of these methods’ applicability is lacking. Multi Criteria Analysis was conducted to compare scientifically valid lie detection and veracity assessment methods in terms of accuracy, ease of use, time requirements, need for special equipment and unobtrusiveness. Results of the analysis showed that Studied Features of Discourse and Nonverbal Communication gained the highest ranking. They were assessed to be the easiest and fastest to apply, and to have required temporal and contextual sensitivity. Plausibility and Inner Logic, MACE and CBCA were also found to be useful, but with some limitations.
THERE IS A BODY of conventional wisdom that claims that you can tell who is lying and who is not. Some of the techniques work some of the time, some of them work under certain conditions. None of them works all of the time. This article reviews some distinctions about the difference between the behavior of liars and the behavior of truth tellers. It is not as simple as you might think.
This chapter introduces a new cognitive approach to non-verbal and verbal lie detection. The aim of the approach is to enhance through specific interventions the difference in cognitive load that liars and truth tellers experience. If successful, those interventions should result in liars displaying more diagnostic cues to deception and should facilitate lie detection. The cognitive lie detection approach has two elements, imposing cognitive load and asking unanticipated questions. This chapter presents the underlying rationale of these two elements together with brief descriptions of numerous studies carried out in this area to date. This section shows that a cognitive lie detection approach (i) results in more cues to deceit and (ii) facilitates lie detection.
The digital age has brought with it new and powerful computer-based methods of analyzing heretofore elusive patterns of nonverbal behavior. C-BAS (Meservy 2010) is a computer-assisted behavioral observation tool for identifying and tracking nonverbal behaviors from video. THEME (Magnusson, The hidden structure of interaction: from neurons to culture patterns, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 4–22, 2005) is a software program that discovers patterns among discrete events in time-ordered data. Together, these tools enable more precise measurement and analysis of nonverbal behavioral dynamics. Applications to three corpora derived from interpersonal deception experiments reveal unique nonverbal patterns that distinguish deceptive from nondeceptive interactions. The first and second experiments produced serial, hierarchically related patterns of behaviors that differed in length and complexity between truthful and deceptive participants during interviews about a theft and cheating, respectively. The third experiment produced differential patterns by and among group members completing a task. Deceivers were inclined toward strategic initiations and interactional control, whereas suspicious group members adopted a more passive, possibly watchful stance. Discovery of these patterns challenges the prevailing view that nonverbal behaviors are too faint and inconsistent to identify deceptive communication. Results have numerous implications regarding the following: the development of new measurement tools locating significant effects of nonverbal behaviors, support for theory that coherent and repetitive relationships exist within and among interactants’ communication, demonstration of the role of nonverbal behaviors in deceptive communication and the dynamic and strategic nature of deception.
The impact of interview styles on lie detection was examined. Thirty-six truth tellers and liars (undergraduates) were interviewed in three different ways: The interview started with an information-gathering interview style (Phase 1), which then developed into an interrogation (Phase 2), and finally transformed back into an information-gathering interview style (Phase 3). On the basis of DePaulo and Kirkendol's Motivational Impairment Effect, which suggests that when people are highly motivated to get away with their lies they actually look like they are controlling their behavior, it was hypothesized that the most prominent differences between liars and truth tellers would emerge in Phase 3. The findings supported this hypothesis, and thus suggest that specific interview styles could facilitate lie detection.
In the first part of this article, I briefly review research findings that show that professional lie catchers, such as police officers, are generally rather poor at distinguishing between truths and lies. I believe that there are many reasons contributing towards this poor ability, and give an overview of these reasons in the second part of this article. I also believe that professionals could become better lie detectors and explain how in the final part of this article.
People remember information from 2 basic sources: external (perceptual processes) and internal (processes such as reasoning, imagination, and thought). Of particular interest are the processes people use in deciding whether information initially had an external or an internal source, i.e., "reality monitoring." A working model of reality monitoring is proposed to account for both discrimination and confusion between memories for thoughts and memories for perceptions. Examples of questions the model addresses are: What types of information are more likely to be represented in memories of external events than in memories of internal events?; What assumptions do individuals have about their memory for their thoughts compared to their memory for their perceptions?; and How accurate are these assumptions? Research that demonstrates the usefulness of the model is summarized. (100 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
In evaluating the truthfulness of children's allegations of (sexual) abuse, German forensic experts have focused on qualitative aspects of the content of a witness's statement. Within the overall credibility assessment of a witness's statement, known as statement validity analysis (SVA), they have developed a technique referred to as criterion-based content analysis (CBCA), which utilizes content criteria that supposedly are indicative of the truthfulness of a statement. While first validation studies of CBCA criteria have been undertaken, a theoretical basis of why and under what circumstances deceptive and truthful accounts should differ with respect to these criteria has been wanting. The reality monitoring (RM) approach is proposed as a theoretical basis for discriminating between fabricated and self-experienced events. The present experiment links forensic CBCA credibility criteria to the reality monitoring approach and tests the relative validity of CBCA and RM criteria in discriminating between fabricated and self-experienced video recorded accounts of adult participants. Transcripts rated for the presence of CBCA and RM criteria by trained experts could be classified in an above-chance fashion. On the basis of a factor analysis of CBCA and RM criteria, commonalities and differences between the two approaches are noted. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This experiment examined children's and undergraduates' verbal and nonverbal deceptive behavior, and the extent to which their truths and lies could be correctly classified by paying attention to these responses. Participants (N= 196) aged 5–6, 10–11, and 14–15, as well as university undergraduates, participated in an erasing the blackboard event, and told the truth or lied about the event afterwards. Nonverbal and verbal responses were coded, the latter with Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring. Although children and undergraduates demonstrated different behaviors (for example, the children obtained lower CBCA scores and made more movements), actual cues to deceit were remarkably similar across different age groups (for example, both 5–6-year-olds and undergraduates obtained lower CBCA scores and made fewer movements while lying). A combination of verbal and nonverbal lie detection methods resulted in more correct classifications of liars and truth tellers than the verbal and nonverbal lie detection methods individually, with the combined method obtaining hit rates as high as 88%.
We examined the hypotheses that (1) a systematic analysis of nonverbal behavior could be useful in the detection of deceit and (2) that lie detection would be most accurate if both verbal and nonverbal indicators of deception are taken into account. Seventy-three nursing students participated in a study about telling lies and either told the truth or lied about a film they had just seen. The interviews were videotaped and audiotaped, and the nonverbal behavior (NVB) and speech content of the liars and truth tellers were analyzed, the latter with the Criteria-Based Content Analysis technique (CBCA) and the Reality Monitoring technique (RM). Results revealed several nonverbal and verbal indicators of deception. On the basis of nonverbal behavior alone, 78% of the lies and truths could be correctly classified. An even higher percentage could be correctly classified when all three detection techniques (i.e., NVB, CBCA, RM) were taken into account.
The authors investigated whether accuracy in identifying deception from demeanor in high-stake lies is specific to those lies or generalizes to other high-stake lies. In Experiment 1, 48 observers judged whether 2 different groups of men were telling lies about a mock theft (crime scenario) or about their opinion (opinion scenario). The authors found that observers' accuracy in judging deception in the crime scenario was positively correlated with their accuracy in judging deception in the opinion scenario. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1, as well as P. Ekman and M. O'Sullivan's (1991) finding of a positive correlation between the ability to detect deceit and the ability to identify micromomentary facial expressions of emotion. These results show that the ability to detect high-stake lies generalizes across high-stake situations and is most likely due to the presence of emotional clues that betray deception in high-stake lies.
The ability of a group of Canadian federal parole officers to detect deception was investigated over the course of 2 days of lie detection training. On the first day of training, 32 officers judged the honesty of 12 (6 true, 6 fabricated) videotaped speakers describing personal experiences, half of which were judged before and half judged after training. On the second day, 5 weeks later, 20 of the original participants judged the honesty of another 12 videotapes (again, 6 pre- and 6 posttraining). To isolate factors relating to detection accuracy, three groups of undergraduate participants made judgments on the same 24 videotapes: (1) a feedback group, which received feedback on accuracy following each judgment, (2) a feedback + cue information group, which was given feedback and information on empirically based cues to deception, and (3) a control group, which did not receive feedback or cue information. Results indicated that at baseline all groups performed at or below chance levels. However, overall, all experimental groups (including the parole officers) became significantly better at detecting deception than the control group. By the final set of judgments, the parole officers were significantly more accurate (M = 76.7%) than their baseline performance (M = 40.4%) as well as significantly more accurate than the control group (M = 62.5%). The results indicate that detecting deceit is difficult, but training and feedback can enhance detection skills.
Do people behave differently when they are lying compared with when they are telling the truth? The combined results of 1,338 estimates of 158 cues to deception are reported. Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales. They also make a more negative impression and are more tense. Their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents. However, many behaviors showed no discernible links, or only weak links, to deceit. Cues to deception were more pronounced when people were motivated to succeed, especially when the motivations were identity relevant rather than monetary or material. Cues to deception were also stronger when lies were about transgressions.
Criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) and statement validity assessment (SVA) are semi-standardized methods for the credibility assessment of children’s statements in cases of sexual abuse. CBCA consists of a systematic analysis of the content of children’s statements using a set of defined criteria, while SVA incorporates additional information from other sources than the statement itself. This chapter provides condensed descriptions of CBCA and SVA and summarizes recent simulation and field studies on the validity of CBCA. The results of these studies demonstrate the usefulness of CBCA for the purpose of credibility assessment of children’s statements about sexual abuse.
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.
Research suggests that most people cannot tell from demeanor when others are lying. Such poor performance is typical not only of laypeople but also of most professionals concerned with lying. In this study, three professional groups with special interest or skill in deception, two law-enforcement groups and a select group of clinical psychologists, obtained high accuracy in judging videotapes of people who were lying or telling the truth about their opinions. These findings strengthen earlier evidence that some professional lie catchers are highly accurate, and that behavioral clues to lying are detectable in real time. This study also provides the first evidence that some psychologists can achieve high accuracy in catching lies.
Discusses situations in which people fail to use valid but abstract information about base-rate behavior. A review of empirical studies indicates that concrete information is used heavily in judgments about self and others; evidence is also presented showing little support for the view that people use consensus information in making attributions. Methodological issues are also examined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This chapter is followed by commentaries by Lucy S. McGough; Gary L. Wells and Elizabeth F. Loftus; and David C. Raskin and Phillip W. Esplin. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
a description of statement analysis by means of content (reality) criteria, a procedure that is called criteria-based statement analysis
content criteria reflect specific features that differentiate truthful from invented testimonies (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Studies based on mean accuracy of a group of subjects suggest that most observers do no better than chance in detecting the lies of others. We argue that a case-by-case methodology, like that used in polygraphy studies may be more useful. Three behavioral measures (two kinds of smiles and pitch) were used to make predictions about the lying or truthfulness of each of 31 subjects. A case-by-case analysis of the hits and misses achieved in this way yielded an over-all accuracy of 86%. The effect on lie detection accuracy of individual differences in the use and control of different behavioral channels is discussed.
This experiment examined the impact of public self-consciousness and acting ability on processes and stereotypical responses during deception. Seventy-three nursing students were videotaped while (a) telling the truth and (b) lying about a theft they had observed. A variety of cues were coded, including criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) and reality monitoring (RM), in which high scores indicated honest responding. Compared with truth tellers, liars waited longer before giving an answer, spoke faster, made more speech hesitations, showed fewer illustrators, and showed lower CBCA and RM scores. Public self-consciousness was positively correlated with trying to control behavior but negatively correlated with RM scores. Ability to act was negatively correlated with RM scores, with showing stereotypical deceptive facial behavior (gaze aversion and smiling), with having to think hard while lying, and with being nervous while lying.
The ability to detect lying was evaluated in 509 people including law-enforcement personnel, such as members of the U.S. Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency, California police and judges, as well as psychiatrists, college students, and working adults. A videotape showed 10 people who were either lying or telling the truth in describing their feelings. Only the Secret Service performed better than chance, and they were significantly more accurate than all of the other groups. When occupational group was disregarded, it was found that those who were accurate apparently used different behavioral clues and had different skills than those who were inaccurate.
The present experiment examined participants' insight into their own behaviour and speech content while lying. It was hypothesized that participants would believe that while lying they show more behaviour stereotypical of lying than they in fact do (Hypothesis 1), whereas they would believe that their own speech content while lying contains fewer stereotypical features than in fact is true (Hypothesis 2). A stereotypical response was defined as a response people generally believe liars usually show. A total of 86 nursing students were interviewed twice about a film they had just seen. During one interview they were asked to tell the truth whereas they had to lie in the other interview. All interviews were videotaped, transcribed and then scored by independent coders. The coders' analyses reveal participants' actual behaviour and speech content. Participants themselves were asked to indicate in a questionnaire how they believed they behaved and what they believed they said in both interviews. To test the hypotheses, comparisons were made between participants' actual responses and their beliefs about their own responses. The results support both hypotheses and implications of these outcomes for the detection of deception are discussed.
Psychology, law, and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice
- S Davies
- M Lloyd-Bostock
- C Mcmurran
- Wilson
Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran, & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology, law, and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 74–80). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Telling and detecting true lies: Investigating and detecting the lies of murderers and thieves during police interviews
- A Vrij
- S Mann
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2003). Telling and detecting true lies: Investigating and detecting the lies of murderers and thieves during police interviews. In M. Verhallen, G. Verhaeke, P. J. van Koppen, & J. Goethals (Eds.), Much ado about crime: Chapters on psychology and law (pp. 185–208).
Implicit lie detection. The Psychologist
- A Vrij
Vrij, A. (2001). Implicit lie detection. The Psychologist, 14, 58–60.
Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice
- A Vrij
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
The evaluation of the credibility of child witness statements in German procedural system The child witness: Do the courts abuse children? (Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology
- G Kö
- M Steller
Kö, G., & Steller, M. (1988). The evaluation of the credibility of child witness statements in German procedural system. In G. Davies, & J. Drinkwater (Eds.), The child witness: Do the courts abuse children? (Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, no. 13) (pp. 37–45). Leicester, United Kingdom: British Psychological Society.
Explicit and implicit deception detection. Paper presented at the Society of Experimental Social Psychologists
- B M Depaulo
- D E Anderson
- H Cooper
DePaulo, B. M., Anderson, D. E., & Cooper, H. (1999, October). Explicit and implicit deception
detection. Paper presented at the Society of Experimental Social Psychologists, St. Louis.
Deception detection and Reality Monitoring: A new answer to an old question?
- M L Alonso-Quecuty
Alonso-Quecuty, M. L. (1992). Deception detection and Reality Monitoring: A new
answer to an old question? In F. Lösel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law:
International perspectives (pp. 328-332). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Implicit lie detection
- Vrij A.