| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Mann, S, et al.
(författare)
-
Two heads are better than one? How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Legal and Criminological Psychology. - 1355-3259. ; 18:2, s. 324-340
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background. We examined the effect of a second interviewer’s demeanour on cues to deception. We predicted that a supportive demeanour would be the most beneficial for eliciting verbal cues to deceit, as it would encourage truth tellers, but not liars, to say more. In addition, we examined the extent to which interviewees deliberately made eye contact with the interviewers. Liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, and therefore have a greater drive to be convincing. Liars are thus more likely to monitor the interviewer to determine if the interviewer appears to believe them. Method. Participants appeared before two interviewers: the first asked all the questions and the second remained silent. The second interviewer exhibited either a supportive, neutral, or a suspicious demeanour. Results. Truth tellers provided significantly more detail than liars, but only in the supportive second interviewer condition. The effect of a second interviewer’s demeanour on detail was perhaps remarkable given that the interviewees hardly looked at the second interviewer (less than 10% of the time). Liars displayed more deliberate eye contact (with the first interviewer) than truth tellers did. Conclusions. A supportive second interviewer has a positive effect on interviewing. We discuss this finding in the wider contexts of investigative interviewing and interviewing to detect deception.
|
|
| 3. |
- Vrij, Aldert, et al.
(författare)
-
Drawing as an innovative and successful lie detection tool
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Applied Cognitive Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0888-4080 .- 1099-0720. ; 24:4, s. 587-594
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We examined an innovative lie detection tool: Drawings. Participants were sent out on a mission to receive a package from a particular location and to deliver it somewhere else. They were told that they may be intercepted by agents belonging to the organisation they were to represent, or to a hostile organisation. They were instructed to reveal the actual details about their mission to friendly agents but to lie and make something up about all aspects of their mission to hostile agents. After the mission the participants were intercepted and interviewed by either friendly or hostile agents. In these interviews they were asked to describe the location where they received the package, and after the interview they were asked to sketch that location. The results showed that participants’ drawings revealed more cues to deceit than their speech.
|
|
| 4. |
- Vrij, Aldert, et al.
(författare)
-
Outsmarting the liars The benefit of asking unanticipated questions
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Law and Human Behavior. - 0147-7307 .- 1573-661X. ; 33:2, s. 159-166
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We hypothesised that the responses of pairs of liars would correspond less with each other than would responses of pairs of truth tellers, but only when the responses are given to unanticipated questions. Liars and truth tellers were interviewed individually about having had lunch together in a restaurant. The interviewer asked typical opening questions which we expected the liars to anticipate, followed by questions about spatial and/or temporal information which we expected suspects not to anticipate, and also a request to draw the layout of the restaurant. The results supported the hypothesis, and based on correspondence in responses to the unanticipated questions, up to 80% of liars and truth tellers could be correctly classified, particularly when assessing drawings.
|
|
| 5. |
- Vrij, Aldert, et al.
(författare)
-
The present and future of verbal lie detection
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 9780197649138
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The last thirty years has seen a transformation in deception research from passively observing subjects’ nonverbal behavior to actively interviewing subjects to elicit verbal cues to deceit. Although significant progress has been made, there is still much work to do in the rapidly developing field of verbal lie detection. In this contribution, we briefly discuss the current status of the field. We outline the four interview protocols most frequently discussed i the scientific literature to date - Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID), Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA), Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), and Verifiability Approach (VA) - followed by the empirical support for these protocols. We then present ideas on how to move the field on verbal lie detection forward.
|
|
| 6. |
- Vrij, Aldert, et al.
(författare)
-
Verbal Lie Detection: Its Past, Present and Future
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Brain Sciences. - : MDPI AG. - 2076-3425. ; 12:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Abstract: This article provides an overview of verbal lie detection research. This type of research began in the 1970s with examining the relationship between deception and specific words. We briefly review this initial deception research. In the late 1980s Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) emerged, a veracity assessment tool containing a list of verbal criteria, followed by Reality Monitoring (RM) and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), two other veracity assessment tools that contain lists of verbal criteria. We discuss their contents, theoretical rationales, and ability to identify truths and lies. We also discuss similarities and differences between CBCA, RM and SCAN. In the mid 2000s ‘Interviewing to deception’ emerged, the development of specific interview protocols aimed at enhancing or eliciting verbal veracity cues. We outline the four most widely researched interview protocols to date: Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA), Reality Interviewing (RI), Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) and Verifiability Approach (VA). We briefly discuss the working of these protocols, their theoretical rationales and empirical support, as well as the similarities and differences between them. We finish this article with elaborating on how neuroscientists could inform and improve verbal lie detection.
|
|
