Summary
In this article, I present my view on the significant developments and theoretical/empirical tipping points in nonverbal and verbal deception and lie detection from the last 30 years and on ...prospects for future research in this domain. I discuss three major shifts in deception detection research: (a) From observing target persons' nonverbal behavior to analyzing their speech; (b) from lie detection based on differences between truth tellers and liars' levels of arousal to lie detection based on the different cognitive processes or strategies adopted to appear convincing; and (c) from passively observing target persons to actively interviewing them to elicit or enhance verbal cues to deceit. Finally, I discuss my ideas for future research, focusing on initiatives from my own lab. Hopefully, this will stimulate other researchers to explore innovative ideas in the verbal deception research domain, which already has seen so much progress in the last decade.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The relationship between nonverbal communication and deception continues to attract much interest, but there are many misconceptions about it. In this review, we present a scientific view on this ...relationship. We describe theories explaining why liars would behave differently from truth tellers, followed by research on how liars actually behave and individuals' ability to detect lies. We show that the nonverbal cues to deceit discovered to date are faint and unreliable and that people are mediocre lie catchers when they pay attention to behavior. We also discuss why individuals hold misbeliefs about the relationship between nonverbal behavior and deception-beliefs that appear very hard to debunk. We further discuss the ways in which researchers could improve the state of affairs by examining nonverbal behaviors in different ways and in different settings than they currently do.
Full text
Available for:
CMK, FFLJ, NUK, UL, UM, UPUK
Introduction
This article provides a meta‐analysis of a new, cognitive approach to (non‐)verbal lie detection. This cognitive lie detection approach consists of three techniques: (1) imposing ...cognitive load, (2) encouraging interviewees to say more, and (3) asking unexpected questions.
Method
A meta‐analysis was carried out on studies using the cognitive approach, 14 of which directly compared the cognitive approach to a standard approach.
Results
The cognitive lie detection approach produced superior accuracy results in truth detection (67%), lie detection (67%), and total detection (truth and lie detection combined, 71%) compared to a traditional standard approach (truth detection: 57%; lie detection: 47%; total detection: 56%).
Conclusions
Practitioners may find it useful to use a cognitive lie detection approach in their daily practice.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
We examined the relationship between age and self-reported verbal deception strategies in Japanese adults. Japanese participants (
= 153) aged 18 to 73 years took part in this study. We requested ...the participants to state their age and freely describe how they structure their speech to appear convincing when lying during their daily interactions. We extracted 13 verbal strategies from the participants' open-ended descriptions. Japan is a high-context culture. The results indicated that 11 categories corresponded to the verbal strategies reported in previous studies on lying conducted in low-context cultures. However, two strategies mentioned in the current study, making ambiguous statements and adding irrelevant details to the lie, were not reported in low-context cultures. As expected, age was significantly and negatively correlated with the number of verbal strategies used when lying. Moreover, verbal strategies that seem relatively cognitive demanding were used less as the age of the participants increased. We concluded that these results reflected the age-related decline of cognitive abilities.
The current study examined the validity of the forced choice test (FCT) in a forensic scenario when used to detect concealment of semantic memory (SM-FCT). We also compared the SM-FCT validity to the ...FCT validity in the more commonly investigated episodic memory scenario (EM-FCT). In simulating a scenario of investigating suspected members of a terror organization, 277 students were asked to deceptively deny being enrolled in a college in which they do actually study. Results indicated that the SM-FCT's validity level was within the range of the EM-FCTs' validity levels. Theoretically, the results support a cognitive-based explanation for the FCT operation mechanism. Practically, they imply that FCT can be used in criminal or intelligence investigations of suspected members of terrorist or criminal organizations or suspected perpetrators of illegal acts or acts of terrorism, in which the incriminating evidence being sought is in the realm of designated semantic memory or knowledge.The current study examined the validity of the forced choice test (FCT) in a forensic scenario when used to detect concealment of semantic memory (SM-FCT). We also compared the SM-FCT validity to the FCT validity in the more commonly investigated episodic memory scenario (EM-FCT). In simulating a scenario of investigating suspected members of a terror organization, 277 students were asked to deceptively deny being enrolled in a college in which they do actually study. Results indicated that the SM-FCT's validity level was within the range of the EM-FCTs' validity levels. Theoretically, the results support a cognitive-based explanation for the FCT operation mechanism. Practically, they imply that FCT can be used in criminal or intelligence investigations of suspected members of terrorist or criminal organizations or suspected perpetrators of illegal acts or acts of terrorism, in which the incriminating evidence being sought is in the realm of designated semantic memory or knowledge.
Over the last 30 years deception researchers have changed their attention from observing nonverbal behaviour to analysing speech content. However, many practitioners we speak to are reluctant to make ...the change from nonverbal to verbal lie detection. In this article we present what practitioners believe is problematic about verbal lie detection: the interview style typically used is not suited for verbal lie detection; the most diagnostic verbal cue to deceit (total details) is not suited for lie detection purposes; practitioners are looking for signs of deception but verbal deception researchers are mainly examining cues that indicate truthfulness; cut-off points (decision rules to decide when someone is lying) do not exist; different verbal indicators are required for different types of lie; and verbal veracity indicators may be culturally defined. We discuss how researchers could address these problems.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
The present study investigated the beliefs of students and police officers about cues to deception. A total of 95 police officers and 104 undergraduate students filled out a questionnaire addressing ...beliefs about cues to deception. Twenty-eight verbal cues were included in the questionnaire, all extracted from verbal credibility assessment tools (i.e., CBCA, RM, and SCAN). We investigated to what extent beliefs about nonverbal and verbal cues of deception differed between lay people (students) and police officers, and whether these beliefs were in agreement with objective cues known from research. Both students and police officers believed the usual stereotypical, but non-diagnostic (nonverbal) cues such as gaze aversion and increased movement to be indicative of deception. Yet, participants were less inclined to overestimate the relationship between verbal cues and deception and their beliefs fitted better with what we know from research. The implications of these findings for practice are discussed.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Los profesionales dicen con frecuencia que la variable detalles totales es adecuada para la deteccin de mentiras en las entrevistas de la vida real. No pueden contar el nmero de detalles en tiempo ...real y se desconoce el umbral de detalles necesario para clasificar a alguien como sincero o mentiroso. Los autores comenzaron a abordar estos temas analizando tres nuevos indicadores verbales de veracidad: las complicaciones, los detalles de conocimiento pblico y las estrategias de falta de capacidad. Se presenta un meta-anlisis de estas tres variables y se comparan los resultados con los detalles totales. Los sujetos que dicen la verdad dan ms detalles (d = 0.28 hasta d = 0.45) y complicaciones (d = 0.51 hasta d = 0.62) y menos detalles de conocimiento pblico (d = -0.40 hasta d = -0.46) y estrategias de justificacin (d = -0.37 hasta d = -0.50) que los que mienten. Las complicaciones resultaron ser el mejor indicador diagnstico de veracidad. Los resultados fueron iguales en la primera entrevista en recuerdo libre y en la segunda entrevista, en la que solo se analizaba informacin nueva. No influyeron en los resultados cuatro moderadores: el escenario, la motivacin, la modalidad y la tcnica de entrevista. Como conclusin, las complicaciones parecen ser un buen indicador de veracidad aunque es necesaria ms investigacin. Se discuten las futuras lneas de investigacin.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
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.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Deception research has shown that analysing verbal content can be effective to distinguish between truths and lies. However, most verbal cues are cues to truthfulness (truth tellers report the cue ...more than lie tellers), whereas cues to deception (lie tellers report the cue more than truth tellers) are largely absent. The complication approach, measuring complications (cue to truthfulness), common knowledge details (cue to deception), self-handicapping strategies (cue to deception), and the ratio of complications, aims to fill this gap in the literature. The present experiment examined the effectiveness of the complication approach when varying the amount of lying, with an Italian sample. Seventy-eight participants were assigned to one of three different experimental conditions: Truth tellers (telling the truth about the event), embedders (providing a mixture of truthful and false information) and outright lie tellers (providing false information). Participants were interviewed about a past experience concerning an out of the ordinary event. Complications discriminated truth tellers from lie tellers. The absence of significant effects for common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies, the limitations of the experiment and suggestions for future research are discussed.
PDF
