Aldert Vrij
Professor of Applied Social Psychology, University of Portsmouth
Aldert Vrij is Professor of Applied Social Psychology, University of Portsmouth (UK). His main research interest is deception.
CREST outputs
Projects
Articles
Academic Publications
Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues
In this article, I present my view on the significant developments and theoretical/empirical tipping points in nonverbal and verbal deception and lie detection from the last 30 years and on prospects for future research in this domain.
I discuss three major shifts in deception detection research: (a) From observing target persons' nonverbal behavior to analyzing their speech; (b) from lie detection based on differences between truth tellers and liars' levels of arousal to lie detection based on the different cognitive processes or strategies adopted to appear convincing; and (c) from passively observing target persons to actively interviewing them to elicit or enhance verbal cues to deceit.
Finally, I discuss my ideas for future research, focusing on initiatives from my own lab.
Hopefully, this will stimulate other researchers to explore innovative ideas in the verbal deception research domain, which already has seen so much progress in the last decade.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, Aldert. 2018. Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 10.1002/acp.3457.
Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars amongst Arab interviewees: A partial replication of Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018)
Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018) found—with British participants—that a model statement elicited (a) more information and (b) a cue to deceit: After exposure to a model statement, liars reported significantly more peripheral information than truth tellers.
We sought to replicate these findings with Arabs living in Israel. Truth tellers and liars reported a stand‐out event that they had (truth tellers) or pretended to have (liars) experienced in the last 2 years. Half of the participants were given a model statement in the second phase of the interview. Replicating Leal et al. (2018a), (a) truth tellers reported more core details than liars initially and (b) a model statement resulted in more additional core and peripheral details in the second phase of the interview. Unlike in Leal et al. (2018a), a model statement did not have a differential effect on truth tellers in the current experiment.
(From the journal abstract)
Sharon Leal, Aldert Vrij, Zarah Vernham et al, 2019. Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars amongst Arab interviewees: A partial replication of Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018). Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3536
Sketching while narrating as a tool to detect deceit
In none of the deception studies that used drawings to date, was the effect of sketching on both speech content and drawing content examined, making it unclear what the full potential is of the use of drawings as a lie detection tool. A total of 122 truth tellers and liars took part in the study who did or did not sketch while narrating their allegedly experienced event. We formulated hypotheses about the total amount of information and number of complications reported and about various features of the drawings. Participants in the Sketch‐present condition provided more information than participants in the Sketch‐absent condition, and truth tellers reported more details than liars, but only in the Sketch‐present condition. In contrast to previous research, no Veracity differences occurred regarding the content of the drawings, perhaps because sketching was introduced as a tool that facilitated verbal recall and not as a stand‐alone tool.
(From the journal abstract)
Aldert Vrij, Samantha Mann, Sharon Leal, Ronald P. Fisher & Haneen Deeb, 2020. Sketching while narrating as a tool to detect deceit. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3646
Facilitating recall and particularisation of repeated events in adults using a multi-method interviewing format
Reports about repeated experiences tend to include more schematic information than information about specific instances. However, investigators in both forensic and intelligence settings typically seek specific over general information. We tested a multi-method interviewing format (MMIF) to facilitate recall and particularisation of repeated events through the use of the self-generated cues mnemonic, the timeline technique, and follow-up questions. Over separate sessions, 150 adult participants watched four scripted films depicting a series of meetings in which a terrorist group planned attacks and planted explosive devices. For half of our sample, the third witnessed event included two deviations (one new detail and one changed detail). A week later, participants provided their account using the MMIF, the timeline technique with self-generated cues, or a free recall format followed by open-ended questions. As expected, more information was reported overall in the MMIF condition compared to the other format conditions, for two types of details, correct details, and correct gist details. The reporting of internal intrusions was comparable across format conditions. Contrary to hypotheses, the presence of deviations did not benefit recall or source monitoring. Our findings have implications for information elicitation in applied settings and for future research on adults’ retrieval of repeated events.
(From the journal abstract)
Kontogianni, F., Rubinova, E., Hope, L., Taylor, P. J., Vrij, A., & Gabbert, F. (2021). Facilitating recall and particularisation of repeated events in adults using a multi-method interviewing format. Memory, 29(4), 471–485.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1903508Verbal cues to deceit when lying through omitting information
Background
Lying through omitting information has been neglected in verbal lie detection research. The task is challenging: Can we decipher from the truthful information a lie teller provides that s/he is hiding something? We expected this to be the case because of lie tellers’ inclination to keep their stories simple. We predicted lie tellers to provide fewer details and fewer complications than truth tellers, the latter particularly after exposure to a Model Statement.
Method
A total of 44 truth tellers and 41 lie tellers were interviewed about a conversation (debriefing interview) they had taken part in earlier. Lie tellers were asked not to discuss one aspect of that debriefing interview.
Results
Results showed that truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers after exposure to a Model Statement.
Conclusion
Ideas about future research in lying through omissions are discussed.
(From the journal abstract)
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Deeb, H., Hudson, C., Capuozzo, P., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). Verbal cues to deceit when lying through omitting information. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 25(2), 278–294.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12180Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: The ghostwriter method
Background
We examined a new method to encourage interviewees to say more, the ghostwriter method, and examined its effect on eliciting information and cues to deceit.
Method
A total of 150 truth tellers and liars either told the truth about a trip they made in the last 12 months or pretended to have made such a trip. They were allocated to a Control condition, a ‘Be detailed’ condition in which they were encouraged to report even small details and a ghostwriter condition in which they were told to imagine talking to a ghostwriter. The dependent variables were details, complications, common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies, proportion of complications, plausibility, and verifiable sources.
Results
The ghostwriter condition elicited more details and revealed in plausibility a stronger cue to deceit than the other two conditions.
Conclusion
The ghostwriter method appears to be a promising tool for eliciting information and cues to deceit.
(From the journal abstract)
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Deeb, H., & Kamermans, K. (2019). Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: The ghostwriter method. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(2), 273–287
https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12152Tracking the truth: The effect of face familiarity on eye fixations during deception
In forensic investigations, suspects sometimes conceal recognition of a familiar person to protect co-conspirators or hide knowledge of a victim. The current experiment sought to determine whether eye fixations could be used to identify memory of known persons when lying about recognition of faces. Participants’ eye movements were monitored whilst they lied and told the truth about recognition of faces that varied in familiarity (newly learned, famous celebrities, personally known). Memory detection by eye movements during recognition of personally familiar and famous celebrity faces was negligibly affected by lying, thereby demonstrating that detection of memory during lies is influenced by the prior learning of the face. By contrast, eye movements did not reveal lies robustly for newly learned faces. These findings support the use of eye movements as markers of memory during concealed recognition but also suggest caution when familiarity is only a consequence of one brief exposure.
(From the journal abstract)
Millen, A. E., Hope, L., Hillstrom, A. P., & Vrij, A. (2017). Tracking the truth: The effect of face familiarity on eye fixations during deception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 70(5), 930–943.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1172093A re-analysis that supports our main results: A reply to Levine et al
Levine et al. (2018) criticized our meta-analysis, but their conclusion was the same as ours: The cognitive approach to lie detection results in a modest improvement. We address and dismiss Levine et al.'s (2018) three criticisms. Regarding the ‘confound’, in our meta-analysis we averaged the results of two cells on statistical grounds, which does not constitute a confound in statistical terms. Regarding ‘aberrant controls’, that depends entirely on the benchmarks selected and type of statistical test and meta-analysis used. Regarding ‘unreliable data’, the claim that there is a positive relationship between ‘unreliable’ data and total accuracy in the cognitive lie detection conditions is not even supported by their own data (p = .16). We conclude with a request to Levine et al. to focus on our shared aim: to develop interview protocols that enable lie detection.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., Blank, H., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). A re-analysis that supports our main results: A reply to Levine et al . Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 20–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12121Plausibility: A Verbal Cue to Veracity worth Examining?
Truth tellers sound more plausible than lie tellers. Plausibility ratings do not require much time or cognitive resources, but a disadvantage is that it is measured subjectively on Likert scales. The aim of the current paper was to understand if plausibility can be predicted by three other verbal veracity cues that can be measured objectively by counting their frequency of occurrence: details, complications, and verifiable sources. If these objective cues could predict plausibility, observers could be instructed to pay attention to them when judging plausibility, which would make plausibility ratings somewhat more objective. We therefore re-analysed five existing datasets; all of them included plausibility, details and complications and two of them also verifiable sources as dependent variables. Plausibility was positively correlated with all three other tested cues, but mostly predicted by complications and verifiable sources, explaining on average almost 40% of the variance. Plausibility showed larger effect sizes in distinguishing truth tellers from lie tellers than the three other cues, perhaps because the plausibility cue consists of multiple components (complications and verifiable sources). Research has shown that the cues that showed the strongest relationship with veracity typically consisted of multiple components.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., Deeb, H., Leal, S., Granhag, P.-A., & Fisher, R. P. (2021). Plausibility: A Verbal Cue to Veracity worth Examining? The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 47–53.
https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a4Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system?
We introduce ‘arousal based’ lie detection tools (the Behavior Analysis Interview, the Comparison Question polygraph Test, CQT) and ‘cognition based’ lie detection tools (imposing cognitive load, encouraging interviewees to say more, asking unexpected questions, Strategic Use of Evidence, Verifiability Approach and Concealed Information polygraph Test, CIT), and discuss whether they are ready for use in investigative interviews. We developed ten criteria on which to judge their suitability. The two arousal-based techniques (frequently used) fall short on numerous criteria. There are too many problems associated with the imposing cognitive load technique, but the other cognitive techniques are ready for use (encouraging interviewees to say more and Strategic Use of Evidence) or ready for use if they continue to receive support in empirical research (asking unexpected questions and Verifiability Approach). The CIT polygraph test cannot be included in a standard investigative interview but can be useful in addition to investigative interviewing.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 302–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.06.014Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior
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.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1377.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01377‘Please tell me all you remember’: A comparison between British and Arab interviewees’ free narrative performance and its implications for lie detection
We examined how much information British and Arab truth tellers and lie tellers volunteer in an initial free narrative. Based on cultural differences in communication styles we predicted that British interviewees would report more details and more complications than Arab interviewees (culture main effect). We further predicted that truth tellers would report more details and complications than lie tellers (veracity main effect), particularly in the British sample (Veracity × Culture interaction effect). A total of 78 British and 76 Israeli-Arab participants took part. The experiment was carried out at a British university and an Israeli university. Participants carried out a mission. Truth tellers were instructed to report the mission truthfully in a subsequent interview whereas lie tellers were asked to lie about certain aspects of the mission. The three hypotheses were supported for details, whereas for complications only the predicted veracity main effect occurred.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Vernham, Z., Dalton, G., Serok-Jeppa, O., Rozmann, N., Nahari, G., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). ‘Please tell me all you remember’: A comparison between British and Arab interviewees’ free narrative performance and its implications for lie detection. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1805812Combining Verbal Veracity Assessment Techniques to Distinguish Truth Tellers from Lie Tellers
Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA) is a verbal lie detection tool consisting of several interview techniques. These techniques have been examined separately but never together. Reflecting the dynamic nature of CCA we combined several of the techniques (free recall followed by a model statement, followed by a reverse order instruction, and followed by a sketch instruction). We examined the new information provided after each stage of the interview and also compared the information provided in the initial recall with the information provided after the entire interview. A total of 47 truth tellers and 47 lie tellers went on a mission. Truth tellers were asked to report their mission truthfully, whereas lie tellers were requested to lie about several aspects of the mission. We measured the total units of information (total details) provided in the interview and the number of complications reported. The results indicate that the pre-registered hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) was supported for complications. Truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers in each stage of the interview and the difference was more pronounced after the entire interview than after the free recall. As a conclusion, CCA was an effective lie detection method when complications were taken into account.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). Combining Verbal Veracity Assessment Techniques to Distinguish Truth Tellers from Lie Tellers. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(1), 9–19.
https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a2
Projects
Articles
Academic Publications
Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues
In this article, I present my view on the significant developments and theoretical/empirical tipping points in nonverbal and verbal deception and lie detection from the last 30 years and on prospects for future research in this domain.
I discuss three major shifts in deception detection research: (a) From observing target persons' nonverbal behavior to analyzing their speech; (b) from lie detection based on differences between truth tellers and liars' levels of arousal to lie detection based on the different cognitive processes or strategies adopted to appear convincing; and (c) from passively observing target persons to actively interviewing them to elicit or enhance verbal cues to deceit.
Finally, I discuss my ideas for future research, focusing on initiatives from my own lab.
Hopefully, this will stimulate other researchers to explore innovative ideas in the verbal deception research domain, which already has seen so much progress in the last decade.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, Aldert. 2018. Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 10.1002/acp.3457.
Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars amongst Arab interviewees: A partial replication of Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018)
Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018) found—with British participants—that a model statement elicited (a) more information and (b) a cue to deceit: After exposure to a model statement, liars reported significantly more peripheral information than truth tellers.
We sought to replicate these findings with Arabs living in Israel. Truth tellers and liars reported a stand‐out event that they had (truth tellers) or pretended to have (liars) experienced in the last 2 years. Half of the participants were given a model statement in the second phase of the interview. Replicating Leal et al. (2018a), (a) truth tellers reported more core details than liars initially and (b) a model statement resulted in more additional core and peripheral details in the second phase of the interview. Unlike in Leal et al. (2018a), a model statement did not have a differential effect on truth tellers in the current experiment.
(From the journal abstract)
Sharon Leal, Aldert Vrij, Zarah Vernham et al, 2019. Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars amongst Arab interviewees: A partial replication of Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018). Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3536
Sketching while narrating as a tool to detect deceit
In none of the deception studies that used drawings to date, was the effect of sketching on both speech content and drawing content examined, making it unclear what the full potential is of the use of drawings as a lie detection tool. A total of 122 truth tellers and liars took part in the study who did or did not sketch while narrating their allegedly experienced event. We formulated hypotheses about the total amount of information and number of complications reported and about various features of the drawings. Participants in the Sketch‐present condition provided more information than participants in the Sketch‐absent condition, and truth tellers reported more details than liars, but only in the Sketch‐present condition. In contrast to previous research, no Veracity differences occurred regarding the content of the drawings, perhaps because sketching was introduced as a tool that facilitated verbal recall and not as a stand‐alone tool.
(From the journal abstract)
Aldert Vrij, Samantha Mann, Sharon Leal, Ronald P. Fisher & Haneen Deeb, 2020. Sketching while narrating as a tool to detect deceit. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3646
Facilitating recall and particularisation of repeated events in adults using a multi-method interviewing format
Reports about repeated experiences tend to include more schematic information than information about specific instances. However, investigators in both forensic and intelligence settings typically seek specific over general information. We tested a multi-method interviewing format (MMIF) to facilitate recall and particularisation of repeated events through the use of the self-generated cues mnemonic, the timeline technique, and follow-up questions. Over separate sessions, 150 adult participants watched four scripted films depicting a series of meetings in which a terrorist group planned attacks and planted explosive devices. For half of our sample, the third witnessed event included two deviations (one new detail and one changed detail). A week later, participants provided their account using the MMIF, the timeline technique with self-generated cues, or a free recall format followed by open-ended questions. As expected, more information was reported overall in the MMIF condition compared to the other format conditions, for two types of details, correct details, and correct gist details. The reporting of internal intrusions was comparable across format conditions. Contrary to hypotheses, the presence of deviations did not benefit recall or source monitoring. Our findings have implications for information elicitation in applied settings and for future research on adults’ retrieval of repeated events.
(From the journal abstract)
Kontogianni, F., Rubinova, E., Hope, L., Taylor, P. J., Vrij, A., & Gabbert, F. (2021). Facilitating recall and particularisation of repeated events in adults using a multi-method interviewing format. Memory, 29(4), 471–485.
Verbal cues to deceit when lying through omitting information
Background
Lying through omitting information has been neglected in verbal lie detection research. The task is challenging: Can we decipher from the truthful information a lie teller provides that s/he is hiding something? We expected this to be the case because of lie tellers’ inclination to keep their stories simple. We predicted lie tellers to provide fewer details and fewer complications than truth tellers, the latter particularly after exposure to a Model Statement.
Method
A total of 44 truth tellers and 41 lie tellers were interviewed about a conversation (debriefing interview) they had taken part in earlier. Lie tellers were asked not to discuss one aspect of that debriefing interview.
Results
Results showed that truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers after exposure to a Model Statement.
Conclusion
Ideas about future research in lying through omissions are discussed.
(From the journal abstract)
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Deeb, H., Hudson, C., Capuozzo, P., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). Verbal cues to deceit when lying through omitting information. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 25(2), 278–294.
Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: The ghostwriter method
Background
We examined a new method to encourage interviewees to say more, the ghostwriter method, and examined its effect on eliciting information and cues to deceit.
Method
A total of 150 truth tellers and liars either told the truth about a trip they made in the last 12 months or pretended to have made such a trip. They were allocated to a Control condition, a ‘Be detailed’ condition in which they were encouraged to report even small details and a ghostwriter condition in which they were told to imagine talking to a ghostwriter. The dependent variables were details, complications, common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies, proportion of complications, plausibility, and verifiable sources.
Results
The ghostwriter condition elicited more details and revealed in plausibility a stronger cue to deceit than the other two conditions.
Conclusion
The ghostwriter method appears to be a promising tool for eliciting information and cues to deceit.
(From the journal abstract)
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Deeb, H., & Kamermans, K. (2019). Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: The ghostwriter method. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(2), 273–287
Tracking the truth: The effect of face familiarity on eye fixations during deception
In forensic investigations, suspects sometimes conceal recognition of a familiar person to protect co-conspirators or hide knowledge of a victim. The current experiment sought to determine whether eye fixations could be used to identify memory of known persons when lying about recognition of faces. Participants’ eye movements were monitored whilst they lied and told the truth about recognition of faces that varied in familiarity (newly learned, famous celebrities, personally known). Memory detection by eye movements during recognition of personally familiar and famous celebrity faces was negligibly affected by lying, thereby demonstrating that detection of memory during lies is influenced by the prior learning of the face. By contrast, eye movements did not reveal lies robustly for newly learned faces. These findings support the use of eye movements as markers of memory during concealed recognition but also suggest caution when familiarity is only a consequence of one brief exposure.
(From the journal abstract)
Millen, A. E., Hope, L., Hillstrom, A. P., & Vrij, A. (2017). Tracking the truth: The effect of face familiarity on eye fixations during deception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 70(5), 930–943.
A re-analysis that supports our main results: A reply to Levine et al
Levine et al. (2018) criticized our meta-analysis, but their conclusion was the same as ours: The cognitive approach to lie detection results in a modest improvement. We address and dismiss Levine et al.'s (2018) three criticisms. Regarding the ‘confound’, in our meta-analysis we averaged the results of two cells on statistical grounds, which does not constitute a confound in statistical terms. Regarding ‘aberrant controls’, that depends entirely on the benchmarks selected and type of statistical test and meta-analysis used. Regarding ‘unreliable data’, the claim that there is a positive relationship between ‘unreliable’ data and total accuracy in the cognitive lie detection conditions is not even supported by their own data (p = .16). We conclude with a request to Levine et al. to focus on our shared aim: to develop interview protocols that enable lie detection.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., Blank, H., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). A re-analysis that supports our main results: A reply to Levine et al . Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 20–23.
Plausibility: A Verbal Cue to Veracity worth Examining?
Truth tellers sound more plausible than lie tellers. Plausibility ratings do not require much time or cognitive resources, but a disadvantage is that it is measured subjectively on Likert scales. The aim of the current paper was to understand if plausibility can be predicted by three other verbal veracity cues that can be measured objectively by counting their frequency of occurrence: details, complications, and verifiable sources. If these objective cues could predict plausibility, observers could be instructed to pay attention to them when judging plausibility, which would make plausibility ratings somewhat more objective. We therefore re-analysed five existing datasets; all of them included plausibility, details and complications and two of them also verifiable sources as dependent variables. Plausibility was positively correlated with all three other tested cues, but mostly predicted by complications and verifiable sources, explaining on average almost 40% of the variance. Plausibility showed larger effect sizes in distinguishing truth tellers from lie tellers than the three other cues, perhaps because the plausibility cue consists of multiple components (complications and verifiable sources). Research has shown that the cues that showed the strongest relationship with veracity typically consisted of multiple components.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., Deeb, H., Leal, S., Granhag, P.-A., & Fisher, R. P. (2021). Plausibility: A Verbal Cue to Veracity worth Examining? The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 47–53.
Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system?
We introduce ‘arousal based’ lie detection tools (the Behavior Analysis Interview, the Comparison Question polygraph Test, CQT) and ‘cognition based’ lie detection tools (imposing cognitive load, encouraging interviewees to say more, asking unexpected questions, Strategic Use of Evidence, Verifiability Approach and Concealed Information polygraph Test, CIT), and discuss whether they are ready for use in investigative interviews. We developed ten criteria on which to judge their suitability. The two arousal-based techniques (frequently used) fall short on numerous criteria. There are too many problems associated with the imposing cognitive load technique, but the other cognitive techniques are ready for use (encouraging interviewees to say more and Strategic Use of Evidence) or ready for use if they continue to receive support in empirical research (asking unexpected questions and Verifiability Approach). The CIT polygraph test cannot be included in a standard investigative interview but can be useful in addition to investigative interviewing.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 302–307.
Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior
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.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1377.
‘Please tell me all you remember’: A comparison between British and Arab interviewees’ free narrative performance and its implications for lie detection
We examined how much information British and Arab truth tellers and lie tellers volunteer in an initial free narrative. Based on cultural differences in communication styles we predicted that British interviewees would report more details and more complications than Arab interviewees (culture main effect). We further predicted that truth tellers would report more details and complications than lie tellers (veracity main effect), particularly in the British sample (Veracity × Culture interaction effect). A total of 78 British and 76 Israeli-Arab participants took part. The experiment was carried out at a British university and an Israeli university. Participants carried out a mission. Truth tellers were instructed to report the mission truthfully in a subsequent interview whereas lie tellers were asked to lie about certain aspects of the mission. The three hypotheses were supported for details, whereas for complications only the predicted veracity main effect occurred.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Vernham, Z., Dalton, G., Serok-Jeppa, O., Rozmann, N., Nahari, G., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). ‘Please tell me all you remember’: A comparison between British and Arab interviewees’ free narrative performance and its implications for lie detection. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–14.
Combining Verbal Veracity Assessment Techniques to Distinguish Truth Tellers from Lie Tellers
Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA) is a verbal lie detection tool consisting of several interview techniques. These techniques have been examined separately but never together. Reflecting the dynamic nature of CCA we combined several of the techniques (free recall followed by a model statement, followed by a reverse order instruction, and followed by a sketch instruction). We examined the new information provided after each stage of the interview and also compared the information provided in the initial recall with the information provided after the entire interview. A total of 47 truth tellers and 47 lie tellers went on a mission. Truth tellers were asked to report their mission truthfully, whereas lie tellers were requested to lie about several aspects of the mission. We measured the total units of information (total details) provided in the interview and the number of complications reported. The results indicate that the pre-registered hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) was supported for complications. Truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers in each stage of the interview and the difference was more pronounced after the entire interview than after the free recall. As a conclusion, CCA was an effective lie detection method when complications were taken into account.
(From the journal abstract)
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). Combining Verbal Veracity Assessment Techniques to Distinguish Truth Tellers from Lie Tellers. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(1), 9–19.