Interviewing to Detect Deception

and, Aldert Vrij; Granhag, Pär Anders

doi:10.1002/9780470713082.ch12

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, an interesting new wave of research has emerged considering interactive situations where the interviewer adopts an active role to elicit deception cues (e.g. Vrij 2014). This interesting new trend of research acknowledges at least two limitations of traditional laboratory experiments, namely, that the sender's spontaneous behavior is poorly related to veracity and that interacting with the sender might facilitate lie detection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How People [Try To] Detect Lies in Everyday Life

Hernández¹,

Masip²,

Herrero³

2021

Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory-based deception-detection experiments often fail to capture the features of everyday life lie detection among ordinary citizens. In this study, we examined how people [try to] detect deception in real life. Over 10 weeks, every time the participants felt they had detected a lie, they filled in an online survey. Results show that, in everyday life, many lies are detected unexpectedly, often from non-behavioral indicators, that people suspecting deception search for both behavioral cues and non-behavioral information, but that non-behavioral information is more useful to detect deception. The study addresses aspects unexplored in prior studies on everyday life lie detection, provides new insights, and has theoretical implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How People [Try To] Detect Lies in Everyday Life

Hernández¹,

Masip²,

Herrero³

2021

Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apart from laypersons, also practitioners often associate nervous behaviors with deception (Strömwall et al, 2004;Vrij and Granhag, 2007;Vrij et al, 2018). In one study, 99 British police officers were asked to answer the question: "What verbal or non-verbal cues do you use to decide whether another person is lying or telling the truth?"…”

Section: Belief: Lie Tellers Display More Nervous Behaviors Than Trutmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these manuals deceptive behavior has been described as: Problem with eye contact, touching the nose, and restless foot and leg movements (Gordon and Fleisher, 2011); avoiding eye contact, frequent posture changes, grooming gestures, and placing hand over mouth/eyes (Inbau et al, 2013); rubbing the eyes, avoiding eye contact, and covering/rubbing the ears (Macdonald and Michaud, 1992); and moving the chair, abrupt and jerky behavior, problem with fine motor coordination, cold and clammy hands, using hands to cover mouth, and failure to maintain eye contact (Zulawski and Wicklander, 1993). See Vrij and Granhag (2007) for a more detailed discussion of the views expressed in police manuals.…”

Section: Belief: Lie Tellers Display More Nervous Behaviors Than Trutmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior

Vrij

Fisher

2020

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we attempt to unravel the misconception about deception and nervous behavior. First we will cite research demonstrating that observers believe lie tellers display more nervous behaviors than truth tellers; that observers pay attention to nervous behaviors when they attempt to detect deception; and that lie tellers actually feel more nervous than truth tellers. This is all in alignment with a lie detection approach based on spotting nervous behaviors. We then will argue that the next, vital, step is missing: Research has found that lie tellers generally do not display more than truth tellers the nervous behaviors laypersons and professionals appear to focus on. If observers pay attention to nervous behaviors but lie tellers do not come across as being nervous, lie detection performance is expected to be poor. Research has supported this claim. We finally discuss ideas for research into lie detection based on non-verbal behaviors.

show abstract

“…) The notion that liars will show more nervous behavior than truth tellers, which derives from the concern-based intervention approach, is not unique to the BAI. It is emphasized in every single police manual of which we are aware (for reviews of such manuals, see Vrij, 2008;Vrij & Granhag, 2007). In particular, the notion that liars look away and display nervous behavior during interviews is mentioned often.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lie detection: Pitfalls and opportunities.

Vrij

Fisher

Mann

et al.

Police Interrogations and False Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy Recommendations.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With current concerns over security, it is becoming increasingly important to discriminate between suspects who lie versus those who tell the truth. Nevertheless, a substantial empirical base shows that laypeople and even trained investigators (e.g., police) are often poor at discriminating between truth tellers and liars (Vrij, 2004(Vrij, , 2008. Vrij (2008) reviewed 107 lie detection studies (79 studies with laypeople and 28 studies with trained investigators) in which observers attempted to detect truths and lies told by people they did not know. The observers did not have any factual evidence to rely on and had to base their judgments solely on the nonverbal and verbal behavior displayed by the truth tellers and liars. The accuracy rates obtained by laypeople (54.27%) and trained investigators (55.91%) were similar and only just above the accuracy rate that could be expected by merely tossing a coin (50%). (O' Sullivan & Ekman, 2004, and O'Sullivan, 2005, 2007, claim to have discovered 29 individuals with superior lie detection skills after having tested over 12,000 professionals for their expertise in lie detection. They call them "wizards." See Bond & Uysal, 2007, for a statistical critique of the evidence for this claim.)One important difficulty observers face is that the act of lying per se does not result in any nonverbal or speech-related cues to deceit (DePaulo et al., 2003;Vrij, 2008). In other words, reliable cues to deception, akin to Pinocchio's growing nose, do not exist; therefore, there is no cue that the lie detector can truly rely on. In this light, the Screening Passengers by Observation Technique introduced at airports in the United States and soon to be introduced in United Kingdom airports can be seen as limited. Screening Passengers by Observation Technique teams look for signs of erratic behavior among passengers and thus assume that the mere fact of hiding something, or other forms of lying, result in unique patterns of behavior displayed by passengers. (This is based largely on the work of Paul Ekman, who claims that aspects of facial communication are beyond control and can betray a deceiver's true emotion via micro-expressions [lasting 1/25 to 1/5 of a second] of that emotion; Ekman, 2006; Porter & Ten 97 The project described in this chapter was sponsored by grants from the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-23-0292 and RES-000-22-1632).

show abstract

Interviewing to Detect Deception

Cited by 14 publications

References 62 publications

How People [Try To] Detect Lies in Everyday Life

How People [Try To] Detect Lies in Everyday Life

Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior

Lie detection: Pitfalls and opportunities.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About