Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve

By Aldert Vrij. 2004

227 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b395b109985bbad4a101dd58c26ec14ac92b7454

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Clinical Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Interrogating to detect deception and truth : effects of strategic use of evidence (2005, background): “An answer to these questions can be sought by three different approaches: the emotional approach, the content complexity approach, and the attempted control approach (DePaulo, 1992; DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985; Ekman, 2001; Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981; Vrij, 2000; Vrij, 2004a).”
Child witness research and forensic interviews of young children: A review (2007, background): “Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murder.”
Blinking During and After Lying (2008, background): “Cognitive Demand Lying can be more cognitively demanding than truth telling (DePaulo et al. 2003; Zuckerman et al. 1981), and several aspects of lying contribute to this increased mental load (Vrij 2004, 2008; Vrij et al. 2006b, in press, 2008).”
Dangerous decisions: the impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability (2010, background): “Granhag & Stromwall, 2004 ; Vrij & Mann, 2004 ; Vrij, 2004 , 2008 ).”
Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations (2007, unknown): “Perhaps surprisingly, even presumed lie experts, such as police officers, judges, and customs officers achieve only moderate hit rates when facing the task of assessing veracity (Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991; Ekman, O’Sullivan, & Frank, 1999; Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2004; Köhnken, 1987; V”
‘Look into my eyes’: can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? (2010, background): “According to the National Research Council (2003), however, this underlying assumption is theoretically weak, and no questions can be formulated that necessarily make liars more concerned than truth tellers (see also Vrij, 2004, 2008).”
Processes underlying deception: an empirical analysis of truth and lies when manipulating the stakes (2005, background): “…exist (see DePaulo et al., 2003, for an overview), Zuckerman, DePaulo and Rosenthal’s (1981) three-factor model is amongst the most popular (Vrij, 2000, 2004).1 The core of the three-factor model is that liars show signs of deceit as a result of experiencing emotions or cognitive load or…”
The truth about lies: What works in detecting high‐stakes deception? (2010, background): “For example, critical thinking errors, a reliance on false stereotypes, and the influence of schemas can influence judicial decisions (e.g. Stromwall & Granhag, 2003; Vrij, 2000, 2004; Vrij & Mann, 2004).”
Nonverbal Dominance Versus Verbal Accuracy in Lie Detection (2008, background): “…et al., 2001) and are frequently mentioned by police officers, other criminal investigators, and laypersons to be indicative of deceit: gaze and self-adaptors (Global Deception Team, 2006; Strömwall, Granhag, & Hartwig, 2004; Taylor & Hick, 2007; Vrij, 2004, 2008; Vrij, Akehurst, & Knight, 2006).”
What really happens in police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions (2009, result): “…to decide if the suspect is ‘guilty’ for example, by observing their behaviour in a preceding interview seems not to be in line with published research on valid behavioural cues to lying (Davis, Markus, Walters, Vorus, & Connors, 2005; De Paulo et al., 2003; Kassin & Fong, 1999; Vrij, 2000, 2004).”
Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom (2009, background): “While most observers attempting to detect lies perform around chance, they tend to overestimate their accuracy (e.g. Memon, Vrij, & Bull, 2003; Vrij, 2004), as witnessed in our sample of judges.”