A Cognitive Approach to Lie Detection

Vrij, Aldert

doi:10.1002/9781118510001.ch9

Cited by 67 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reviews of the cognitive lie detection approach have been published before (Vrij, , ; Vrij & Granhag, ; Vrij, Granhag, Mann, & Leal, ; Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, ; Vrij, Leal, Mann, Vernham, & Brankaert, ). The main difference between this article and the previous articles is that this article expands the literature by reporting a meta‐analysis examining whether the cognitive lie detection approach facilitates lie detection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis

Vrij

Fisher

Blank

2015

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

212

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis

Vrij

Fisher

Blank

2015

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

212

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We developed a cognitive lie detection training workshop that took into account the results of more than 20 studies into cognitive lie detection (Vrij, ). In a first training evaluation study, the developers (all scientists) delivered the training to experienced police detectives (Vrij, Leal, Mann, Vernham, & Brankaert, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on these meta‐analyses, some researchers started to examine whether investigators can elicit new cues or enhance existing cues to deceit through specific interview protocols (Vrij & Granhag, ). The two most extensively examined approaches to date are the strategic use of evidence technique (Granhag & Hartwig, ; Hartwig, Granhag, & Luke, ) and the cognitive lie detection approach (Vrij, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Train the Trainers: A First Step towards a Science‐Based Cognitive Lie Detection Training Workshop Delivered by a Practitioner

Vrij

Mann

Leal

et al. 2015

Journal Invest Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A training workshop utilising recent research in cognitive lie detection was designed and evaluated. A unique future of the training was that a practitioner (retired police detective) instead of scientists (e.g. the training developers) introduced the techniques. To evaluate the training, 27 experienced police detectives each interviewed one mock suspect (a truth teller or liar) before training, and another group of 23 experienced police detectives interviewed one mock suspect (a truth teller or liar) after training. The police detectives were free to interview the mock suspect in any way they felt appropriate, but those who had received training were asked to try to incorporate (some of) the taught techniques in their interviews. The detectives made veracity judgements, and the interviews were transcribed and coded for the amount of detail elicited and the questions asked. Training had a modest effect on the ability to distinguish between truths and lies but resulted in a higher percentage of appropriate questions asked. Trainees did not implement the taught techniques to an equal extent, but when they did, the techniques enhanced the elicitation of information. The training study also revealed challenges, particularly difficulty in implementing the taught techniques into practice and asking the right questions to elicit differences in detail between truth tellers and liars. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…A reading of the commentaries (Ben-Shakhar et al, 2015;Elaad, 2015;Ginton, 2015;Ogawa et al, 2015;Vrij, 2015aVrij, , 2015b) reveals statements suggesting that at least some CQT advocates (e.g., Ginton, 2015) and CIT advocates (e.g., Ben-Shakhar et al, 2015;Elaad, 2015;Ginton, 2015;Ogawa et al, 2015;Vrij, 2015aVrij, , 2015b continue to perpetuate this type of thinking and do so in spite of evidence to the contrary. For instance, Ginton (2015, p. 27) contends that there is a meaningful difference between the CIT and CQT in part due to the fact that a significant response may be elicited in the "Concealed Information Test -CIT" regardless of the answer given, noting that:…”

Section: Differences In Cognitive Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is interesting to note that the genesis of this phrase (i.e., cognitive load) can be traced to research focusing on education and problem-solving (cf., Owen, & Sweller, 1985, p.284; also see Paas et al, 2003) and was not associated at first with the detection of deception. Today Vrij (2008), along with other researchers, who appear primarily interested in the non-instrumental assessment of credibility (e.g., Vrij et al, 2012), have popularized the term as a construct to explain, in part, the attendant increase in cortical activity when an individual lies (see also, Vrij, 2015a). Cognitive load is also referenced in the context of a possible strategy used to elicit nonverbal/verbal (e.g., reaction time) behaviors (e.g., Walczyk et al, 2003) from which deception may be inferred.…”

Section: Preliminary Process Theory (Ppt) As a Plausible Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%