Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice

By Aldert Vrij. 2000

740 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/180c481599f7a0ed84bd369abb92feb72a2a2a5d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

How people really detect lies (2002, background): “Similarly, McCornack (1997; also Vrij, 2000) argues that everyday lies may not be more arousal producing or cognitively effortful than truthful messages.”
Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals' beliefs about deception (2004, background): “The vast majority of studies investigating people’s beliefs about cues to deception have been conducted with college students as participants (Vrij, 2000).”
Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. (2007, methodology): “Although psycholinguistic theories (Goldman-Eisler, 1968) may provide a sound basis for predicting some paraverbal correlates of deception (Vrij, 2000; Walczyk et al., 2003, 2005), the link with nonverbal indicators is less clear.”
Exploring Liars' Strategies for Creating Deceptive Reports (2013, background): “…engage in a similar constructive strategy (i.e., they also report from autobiographical memory) is telling and may contribute to the overall poor performance by observers in trying to distinguish between liars and truth tellers (e.g., see Aamodt & Custer, 2006; Bond & DePaulo, 2006; & Vrij, 2000).”
"You're Guilty, So Just Confess!" Cognitive and Behavioral Confirmation Biases in the Interrogation Room. (2004, background): “…people perform at no better than chance levels when attempting to detect deception (DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985; Memon, Vrij, & Bull, 2003; Vrij, 2000), that training programs produce only small and inconsistent improvements in performance compared with a control condition (Bull, 1989;…”
On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detection (2018, background): “To detect deception, researchers have examined the role of behavioral, emotional, and linguistic cues [17, 19, 39, 42, 54, 75].”
To Catch a Liar: Challenges for Research in Lie Detection Training (2003, methodology): “…multiple questions will more strongly tax the cognitive system of the liar, producing “thinking” clues to deceit such as speech errors, reduced illustrators, and so forth (e.g., deTurck & Miller, 1985; Ekman, 1992; Feeley & deTurck, 1998; Greene, et al., 1985; Hocking & Leathers, 1980; Vrij, 2000).”
Credibility of the emotional witness: A study of ratings by police investigators (2008, background): “…studies showing that police officers are no better than lay people at detecting lies and deceit when using nonverbal signs as cues (Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991; Ekman et al., 1999; DePaulo et al., 2003; Garrido et al., 2004; Kassin et al., 2003; Meissner & Kassin, 2002; Vrij, 2000; Vrij & Mann, 2001).”
Processes underlying deception: an empirical analysis of truth and lies when manipulating the stakes (2005, unknown): “Mann, Vrij and Bull (2002) examined the behavioural responses of 16 suspects while they lied and told the truth during their police interviews about their alleged involvement in serious crimes including murder, 200 L.”