Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions.

Vrij, Aldert; Leal, Sharon; Granhag, Pär Anders; Mann, Samantha; Fisher, Ronald P.; Hillman, Jackie; Sperry, Kathryn

doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9143-y

Cited by 235 publications

(309 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

287

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a consequence, behavioural indicator methods for security screening necessarily comprise a rigid procedure in which the kinds of indicators to look for are prescribed and trained. The scripted nature of a suspicious signs interview makes it difficult to employ psychologically validated techniques such as tactical use of evidence (Dando et al, 2012), tests of expected knowledge , and unexpected questions (Vrij et al, 2009). Intuitive processing in deception detection of the kind promoted by a suspicious signs approach exacerbates truth and lie biases in deception judgements (Meissner & Kassin, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening.

Ormerod¹,

Dando²

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current aviation security systems identify behavioral indicators of deception to assess risks to flights, but they lack a strong psychological basis or empirical validation. We present a new method that tests the veracity of passenger accounts. In an in vivo double-blind randomized-control trial conducted in international airports, security agents detected 66% of deceptive passengers using the veracity test method compared with less than 5% using behavioral indicator recognition. As well as revealing advantages of veracity testing over behavioral indicator identification, the study provides the highest levels to date of deception detection in a realistic setting where the known base rate of deceptive individuals is low.You have to measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure . . . safety. And you also have to think are there ways . . . that are less intrusive (Barak Obama, Lisbon, November 2010).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, asking unanticipated questions during interviews has been shown to raise the cognitive load of deceivers more than truth-tellers, leading to higher detection rates (Vrij et al, 2009). …”

Section: Approaches To Detecting Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening.

Ormerod¹,

Dando²

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Liars may have an easier task and, hence, provide more detailed answers, if they are asked questions that they are prepared for. In support of the unexpected-questions approach, it has been found that more pronounced differences between truth tellers and liars appeared in answers to unexpected questions than in answers to expected questions (Roos af Hjelmsäter, Öhman, Granhag, Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps, & Vrij, 2013;Vrij et al, 2009;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Jundi, & Granhag, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

Vrij

Leal

Mann

et al. 2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe examined whether speech-related differences between truth tellers and liars are more profound when answering unexpected questions than when answering expected questions. We also examined whether the presence of an interpreter affected these results. In the experiment, 204 participants from the United States (Hispanic participants only), Russia, and the Republic of Korea were interviewed in their native language by a native-speaking interviewer or by a British interviewer through an interpreter. Truth tellers discussed a trip that they had made during the last 12 months; liars fabricated a story about such a trip. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications.The proportion of complications distinguished truth tellers from liars better when answering unexpected than expected questions, but only in interpreter-absent interviews. The number of details provided did not differ between truth tellers and liars or between interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

show abstract

“…Despite these issues, some valid cues have been discovered that, on average, do distinguish deceptive from honest individuals. Each cue can be assigned to the category of a verbal (or content), a paraverbal, or a nonverbal cue (Hart, Fillmore, & Griffith, 2010;Sporer & Schwandt, 2006 (Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003); use fewer exclusive words (e.g., "except"; Newman et al, 2003); reveal details of poorer quality and quantity directly after an event (DePaulo et al, 2003;Granhag et al, 2003;Vrij, 2004;Vrij, Akehurst, Soukara, & Bull, 2004;Vrij, Edward, Roberts, & Bull, 2000;Vrij, Leal, Granhag, Mann, Fisher, Hillman, & Sperry, 2009;Vrij et al, 2008); include fewer spontaneous corrections (Vrij et al, 2004;Vrij et al, 2000); include less contextual embedding Vrij et al, 2000); are more consistent in statements made over time (Strömwall & Granhag, 2003a); include fewer reproductions of conversations Vrij et al, 2000); use more cognitive operations in their speech ; produce less plausible accounts of events (DePaulo et al, 2003); produce accounts that are less logical (DePaulo et al, 2003); be more likely to include discrepant or ambivalent content (DePaulo et al, 2003); appear less expressive (DePaulo et al, 2003, Vrij, 2000; appear more passive (DePaulo et al, 2003, Vrij, 2000; seem less confident (DePaulo et al, 2003, Vrij, 2000; be less involved in conversation (DePaulo et al, 2003, Vrij, 2000; appear more tense (DePaulo et al, 2003, Vrij, 2000; be less cooperative (DePaulo et al, 2003…”

Section: Purported Versus Valid Cues Used To Detect Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fortunately, when trained in empirically-based methods, legal professionals can improve their deception detection abilities (Vrij et al, 2009). A meta-analysis of training techniques used prior to 2003 found that training resulted in small but dependable, positive gains in lie detection (Frank & Feeley, 2003).…”

Section: Purported Versus Valid Cues Used To Detect Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truth and Deception in Informants' Accounts of Criminal Admissions

Boydell¹

2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informants who report admissions to crime can be powerful and dangerous players in the criminal justice system. Some informants, such as jailhouse informants, are considered deceitful, in part because they can receive incentives to report criminal admissions. However, little research has examined the nature of information that informants provide. In particular, no recent published research has examined whether there are valid behavioural cues that distinguish deceptive from truthful informants. In addition, no published study to date has explored whether informants' reports and demeanours are affected by the incentives that they receive. Participants in this study either did or did not hear a criminal admission and then were interviewed one week later about details of the admission they had allegedly heard. Some participants were offered an incentive to report the criminal admission in a way that appeared accurate and forthcoming. The results of this study suggest that there may be behavioural cues emitted during the reporting of criminal admissions that distinguish truthful from deceptive informants. However, the direction of differences for some cues may deviate from other types of witnesses to crime. In addition, the findings of this study indicate that being offered an incentive may induce informants to emit cues during the reporting of criminal admissions that make them appear more truthful, regardless of whether or not they are actually telling the truth. The findings of this study raise concerns about whether informants' honesty should be assessed in the same way as other witnesses, and about potentially negative consequences of offering incentives to informants in exchange for their reports of criminal admissions.

show abstract

Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions.

Cited by 235 publications

References 32 publications

Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening.

Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening.

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

Truth and Deception in Informants' Accounts of Criminal Admissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About