Ronald P. Fisher
Articles
Academic Publications
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
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.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12180A 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
Articles
Academic Publications
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
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.
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.