Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:33:48.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Accuracy of distinguishing truth from lie

from Part I - Domains of accurate interpersonal perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2016

By
Judee K. Burgoon  and
Norah E. Dunbar
Edited by
Judith A. Hall ,
Marianne Schmid Mast  and
Tessa V. West
Judith A. Hall
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Marianne Schmid Mast
Affiliation:
Université de Lausanne, Switzerland
Tessa V. West
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Judging another’s veracity is a complex and difficult, albeit second-nature, undertaking. Humans ascertaining the truthfulness of another’s communication without the benefit of any special training or instrumentation average only 54% overall accuracy. Experts often perform no better than laypeople when judging the brief, decontextualized, low-stakes video and audio clips that dominate the meta-analytic literature. However, judges attain higher accuracy when they are trained and experienced, engage in longer interactions, have access to context information or baseline behavior, and adopt strategic questioning strategies. Judgment accuracy is a function not only of characteristics of the judge but also the sender, sender–receiver relationship, signal, communication genre (e.g., interview), modality (e.g., face-to-face, audio), and context. Behavioral observation techniques used by trained human coders, software for automating behavioral observation, and instruments for sensing and tracking behavior are being developed at a rapid rate, enabling improved accuracy by both experts and lay people.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Social Psychology of Perceiving Others Accurately , pp. 71 - 97
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner, 15, 6–11.Google Scholar
Ali, M., & Levine, T. (2007). The language of truthful and deceptive denials and confessions. Communication Reports, 20, 82–91.Google Scholar
Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F., & Uysal, A. (2007). On lie detection “wizards.” Law and Human Behavior, 31, 109–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bull, R. (2004). Training to detect deception from behavioral cues: Attempts and problems. In Granhag, P. A. & Strömwall, L. A. (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 251–268). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Hunsaker, F. G. (1991). Interpersonal deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. Communication Monographs, 58, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K. (2005). The future of motivated deception detection. In Kalbfleisch, P. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 29 (pp. 49–95). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., & Strom, R. E. (2008). Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue availability in detecting deception. Human Communication Research, 34, 572–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (2015). Interpersonal deception theory: Purposive and interdependent behavior during deceptive interpersonal interactions. In Braithwaite, D. O. & Schrodt, P. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication, 2nd ed. (pp. 349–362). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A., & Rockwell, P. (1994). Interpersonal deception: V. Accuracy in deception detection. Communication Monographs, 61, 303–325.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Floyd, K. (2001). Does participation affect deception success? A test of the inter-activity effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 503–534.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Floyd, K., & Grandpre, J. (1996). Deceptive realities: Sender, receiver, and observer perspectives in deceptive conversations. Communication Research, 23, 724–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Guerrero, L. K. (1995). Interpersonal deception: IX. Effects of social skill and nonverbal communication on deception success and detection accuracy. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A., Rockwell, P., & White, C. (1996). Testing interpersonal deception theory: Effects of suspicion on nonverbal behavior and relational messages. Communication Theory, 6, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., White, C. H., Afifi, W., & Buslig, A. L. S. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., & Floyd, K. (2000). Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L., & Floyd, K. (2010). Nonverbal communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., & Qin, T. (2006). The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 76–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Twitchell, D. P., Nunamaker, J. F., & Zhou, L. (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81–106.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman, J. S. & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Coleman, L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language, 57, 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, J. M., Cao, J., Lin, M., Burgoon, J. K., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2007). A comparison of instructor-led vs. web-based training for deception detection. Journal of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) Education: Innovations and Research (JSTEM), 8, 1–10.Google Scholar
Damphousse, K. R. (2008). Voice stress analysis: Only 15 percent of lies about drug use detected in field test. NIJ Journal, 259, 8–12.Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., & Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In Yuille, J. C. (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 51–70). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B.M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1096–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, N. E., Harvell, L. A., Jensen, M. L., Burgoon, J. K., & Kelley, K. M. (2012). The viability of using rapid judgments as a method of deception detection. Paper presented at the 45th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.Google Scholar
Dunbar, N. E., & Jensen, M. L. (2011). Digital deception in personal relationships. In Wright, K. B. & Webb, L. M. (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 324–343). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Burgoon, J. K., Kelley, K. M., Harrison, K. J., Adame, B. J., & Bernard, D. R. (2015). Effects of veracity, modality, and sanctioning on credibility assessment during mediated and unmediated interviews. Communication Research. Vol. 42(5) 649–674. DOI: 10.1177/0093650213480175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, N. E., Ramirez, A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Interactive deception: Effects of participation on participant-receiver and observer judgments. Communication Reports, 16, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, usage, and coding. In Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.), Semiotica (pp. 49–98). London: Mouton.Google Scholar
Elkins, A. C. (2011). Vocalic markers of deception and cognitive dissonance for automated emotion detection systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Fainzang, S. (2002). Lying, secrecy and power within the doctor-patient relationship. Anthropology & Medicine, 9, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, M. G., & Feeley, T. H. (2003). To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 58–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, C. M., Biros, D. P., Burgoon, J. K., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2013). An examination and validation of linguistic constructs for studying high-stakes deception. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiselman, R. (2012). The cognitive interview for suspects (CIS). American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 30, 1–17.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gougler, M., Nelson, R., Handler, M., Krapohl, D., Shaw, P., & Bierman, L. (2011). Meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated polygraph techniques. Polygraph, 40, 194–305.Google Scholar
Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2000). Effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail. Psychology, Crime and Law, 6, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Griesel, D., Ternes, M., Schraml, D., Cooper, B. S., & Yuille, J. C. (2013). The ABC’s of CBCA: Verbal credibility assessment in practice. In Cooper, B. S., Griesel, D., & Ternes, M. (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 293–323). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hahm, J., Ji, H. K., Jeong, J. Y., Oh, D. H., Kim, S. H., Sim, K. B., & Lee, J. H. (2009). Detection of concealed information: Combining a virtual mock crime with a P300-based Guilty Knowledge Test. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 269–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. T. (2008). On lying and being lied to: An automated linguistic analysis of deception. Discourse Processes, 46, 1–23.Google Scholar
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 617–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.-A., Stromwall, L., Wolf, A. G., Vrij, A., & Hjelmsäter, E. R. (2011). Detecting deception in suspects: Verbal cues as a function of interview strategy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 643–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Hocking, J. E., & Leathers, D. G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective. Communications Monographs, 47, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, C. M., & Frank, M. G. (2011). Executing facial control during deceptive situations. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. L., Bessarabova, E., Adame, B., Burgoon, J. K., & Slowik, S. M. (2011). Deceptive language by innocent and guilty criminal suspects: The influence of dominance, question, and guilt on interview responses. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. K. & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, M. L. (2006). Lying and deception in close relationships. In Vangelisti, A. L. & Perlman, D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 517–532). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, M. L. (2008). Lying and deception in human interaction. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Langleben, D. D. (2008). Detection of deception with fMRI: Are we there yet? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leal, S., & Vrij, A. (2008). Blinking during and after lying. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Blair, J. P., & Clare, D. D. (2014). Diagnostic utility: Experimental demonstrations and replications of powerful question effects in high‐stakes deception detection. Human Communication Research, 40, 262–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Clare, D. D., Green, T., Serota, K. B., & Park, H. S. (2014). The effects of truth–lie base rate on interactive deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 40, 350–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.” Communications Monographs, 66, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., Shim, J. C., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, L. L. M., Dunbar, N. E., & Russell, J. (2011). Risky business or managed event? Perceptions of power and deception in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 15, 55–79.Google Scholar
Lubow, R., & Fein, O. (1996). Pupillary size in response to a visual guilty knowledge test: New technique for the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 164.Google Scholar
Malone, B. E. (2001). Perceived cues to deception: A meta-analytic review (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.Google Scholar
Masip, J., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2004). Defining deception. Anales de Psicología, 20, 147–171.Google Scholar
Masip, J., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2009). Heuristic versus systematic processing of information in detecting deception: Questioning the truth bias. Psychological Reports, 105, 11–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A., & Levine, T. R. (1990). When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception. Communications Monographs, 57, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., Paik, J. E., Wisner, A. M., & Zhu, X. (2014). Information manipulation theory 2: A propositional theory of discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 348–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 469–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, M., & Millar, K. (1995). Detection of deception in familiar and unfamiliar persons: The effects of information restriction. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, K., Giboney, J., Ehrhardt, E., Burgoon, J. K., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2012). Structured programming for linguistic cue extraction. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, January.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okubo, M., Kobayashi, A., & Ishikawa, K. (2012). A fake smile thwarts cheater detection. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormerod, T. C., & Dando, C. J. (2015). Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, M. (2008). Home runs and humbugs: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008). Psychological Bulletin, 134, 493–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In Granhag, P. A. & Strömwall, L. A. (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 269–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, M., Frank, M. G., Hurley, C. M., & Tiwana, J. (2009). Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 530–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pavlidis, I., Eberhardt, N. L., & Levine, J. A. (2002). Human behaviour: Seeing through the face of deception. Nature, 415, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Porter, S., Campbell, M. A., Stapleton, J., & Birt, A. R. (2002). The influence of judge, target, and stimulus characteristics on the accuracy of detecting deceit. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34, 172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., & Gustaw, C. (2010). Dangerous decisions: The impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., & Wallace, B. (2012). Secrets and lies: Involuntary leakage in deceptive facial expressions as a function of emotional intensity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhard, M.-A., Sporer, S. L., Scharmach, M., & Marksteiner, T. (2011). Listening, not watching: Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. (2010). P300 in detecting concealed information. In Verschuere, B., Shakhar, G. B., & Meijer, E. (Eds.), Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test (pp. 63–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steller, M., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-based content analysis. In Raskin, D. C. (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217–245). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Stiff, J. B., Kim, H. J., & Ramesh, C. N. (1992). Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception. Communication Research, 19, 326–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiff, J. B., Miller, G. R., Sleight, C., Mongeau, P., Garlick, R., & Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, S.-Y., & Luo, Y.-J. (2008). Feedback-related negativity in outcome evaluation with a deception task. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40, 693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Brinke, L., & Porter, S. (2010).The truth about lies: What works in detecting high-stakes deception? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 57–75.Google Scholar
Thornton, K. E. (2005). The qEEG in the lie detection problem: The localization of guilt? Journal of Neurotherapy, 9, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G, Koster, E.H., Van Bockstaele, B., & De Clercq, A. (2007). Startling secrets: Startle eye blink modulation by concealed crime information. Journal of Biological Psychology, 76, 52–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2006). Nonverbal communication and deception. In Manusov, V. & Patterson, M. L. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 341–359). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., & Baxter, M. (1999). Accuracy and confidence in detecting truths and lies in elaborations and denials: Truth bias, lie bias and individual differences. Expert Evidence, 7, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). Police officers’ ability to detect deceit: The benefits of indirect deception detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Evans, H., Akehurst, L., & Mann, S. (2004). Rapid judgements in assessing verbal and nonverbal cues: Their potential for deception researchers and lie detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Outsmarting the liars: Toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2012). Imposing cognitive load to elicit cues to deceit: Inducing the reverse order technique naturally. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(6), 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Robbins, E., & Robinson, M. (2006). Police officers’ ability to detect deception in high stakes situations and in repeated lie detection tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 741–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warmelink, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., Forrester, D., & Fisher, R. P. (2011). Thermal imaging as a lie detection tool at airports. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, C. H., & Burgoon, J. K. (2001). Adaptation and communicative design: Patterns of interaction in truthful and deceptive conversations. Human Communication Research, 27, 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–57). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In Siegman, A. W. & Feldstein, S. (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 129–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×