Detecting Deceit via Analysis of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior

By Aldert Vrij, K. Edward, Kim P. Roberts, Ray Bull. 2000

433 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5690b4192e25c539f1a987c994ce40ddf9d58550

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Detecting Deception: The Benefit of Looking at a Combination of Behavioral, Auditory and Speech Content Related Cues in a Systematic Manner (2004, result): “(in press) data were very similar to the fi ndings obtained with the Vrij et al. (2000) data: 81% hit rate for lie detection, 77% hit rate for truth detection and 79% total hi t rate.”
“Everything Is Perfect, and We Have No Problems”: Detecting and Limiting Social Desirability Bias in Qualitative Research (2019, methodology): “Previous research supports the idea that individuals may be more effective in detecting bias when considering both types of cues (Vrij et al., 2000).”
The importance of being earnest: displayed emotions and witness credibility (2003, background): “Recent reviews of the research (Memon et al., 1998; Vrij, 2000) indicate that it is difficult to discriminate between truthful and deceptive behaviour, and that lay persons and professionals alike are not very good at detecting lies (Ekman and O’Sullivan, 1991; Ekman et al., 1999; Forrest and Feldma”
Cognitive Lie Detection: Response Time and Consistency of Answers as Cues to Deception (2009, background): “Social context influences lie generation, including knowledge of examiners’ suspicions (Fiske and Taylor 1991; Vrij et al. 2000 ).”
Impression Management and Retrospective Sense-Making in Corporate Narratives: A Social Psychology Perspective (2011, background): “…who engage in deception to show the following linguistic characteristics: (1) They are shorter (DePaulo et al., 2003; Burgoon et al., 2003; Vrij et al., 2000), (2) they contain fewer self-references (Newman et al., 2003), (3) they contain fewer references to others (Newman et al., 2003),…”
Detecting Deception from Emotional and Unemotional Cues (2009, background): “they must be viewed in the context of an individual’s normal behavior to allow correct interpretation (Ekman and Friesen 1974; Vrij et al. 2000 ).”
Detecting and Classifying Malevolent Dialogue Responses: Taxonomy, Data and Methodology (2020, background): “Privacy invasion [22], negative value basis [7] and deceit [55] are three of the most important unethical issues that can be detected in spoken language.”
The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence (2005, neutral): “Currently there are three major approaches available to detect deception (Yuille, 1989; Alonso-Quecuty, 1994a; Sporer, 1997; Masip and Garrido, 2000; Vrij, 2000; Vrij et al ., 2001).”
Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and reality monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching, and deception (2004, methodology): “Following previous examples (Vrij et al., 2000, 2001b, in press) a total Reality Monitoring score was calculated.”