Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked

313 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Eliciting Reliable Information in Investigative Interviews (2014, background): “These accuracy rates improve somewhat when the consequences of (not) being believed increase (Vrij & Granhag, 2012) or when real-life police interviews are examined (Mann, Vrij, & Bull, 2004), but even then, accuracy rates do not exceed 65%.”
Interviewing to detect deception (2014, methodology): “These scholars have argued for a change in direction (Vrij & Granhag, 2012) and have developed alternative interview protocols which have their roots in cognition and based on the assumption that questions can be asked that are more difficult for liars to answer than for truth tellers.”
A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis (2017, unknown): “Reviews of the cognitive lie detection approach have been published before (Vrij, 2014, 2015; Vrij & Granhag, 2012; Vrij, Granhag, Mann, & Leal, 2011; Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010; Vrij, Leal, Mann, Vernham, & Brankaert, 2015).”
Is This Testimony Truthful, Fabricated, or Based on False Memory? (2014, background): “Some authors have argued that empirical support for anxiety-based approaches is especially weak, making it seem more promising to concentrate on phenomena due to differences in cognitive load (Vrij & Granhag, 2012; see Frank & Svetieva, 2012, for a critical account).”