Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Future Research Directions
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Profile image of P. GranhagP. Granhag

2010, Psychological Science in the Public Interest

https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610390861
visibility

…

description

33 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such

Related papers

Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying
Robert Kraut

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978

Two experiments examined strategies observers use to see through self-presentations. In the first, five male actor subjects lied or told the truth in simulated job interviews. Forty-one observers were moderately accurate in judging the actors' truthfulness. Actors were consistently good or poor liars, but judges were not consistently good or poor. When actors lied, they gave less plausible, shorter answers with longer latencies. Observers seemed to use the plausibility and latency, as well as an answer's vagueness and consistency and an actor's smiling, postural shifting, and grooming, to determine whether he was lying. The second study experimentally manipulated the content of an answer and a nonverbal cue. Observers were more likely to judge a female job applicant as lying when her answers were self-serving. A long hesitation before an answer made observers more suspicious of an already self-serving answer and more certain of the truth of an already forthright one.

View PDFchevron_right
Detecting Deceit Via Analyses of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Children and Adults
Stavroula Soukara

Human Communication Research, 2004

This experiment examined children's and undergraduates' verbal and nonverbal deceptive behavior, and the extent to which their truths and lies could be correctly classified by paying attention to these responses. A total of 196 participants (aged 5-6, 10-11, 14-15, and undergraduates) participated in an erasing the blackboard event, and told the truth or lied about the event afterwards. Nonverbal and verbal responses were coded, the latter with Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring. Although children and undergraduates demonstrated different behaviors (for example, the children obtained lower CBCA scores and made more movements), actual cues to deceit were remarkably similar across different age groups (for example, both 5-6-year-olds and undergraduates obtained lower CBCA scores and made fewer movements while lying). A combination of verbal and nonverbal lie detection methods resulted in more correct classifications of liars and truth tellers than the verbal and nonverbal lie detection methods individually, with the combined method obtaining hit rates as high as 88%. Deceptive responses 2 Detecting Deceit Via Analyses of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Children and Adults Although it sounds reasonable to suggest that looking at a combination of nonverbal and verbal behaviors ("speech content") will lead to more accurate classifications of liars and truth tellers than investigating nonverbal and verbal behaviors separately, researchers rarely investigate both types simultaneously. Vrij, Edward, Roberts, and Bull (2000) examined (adult) participants' nonverbal and verbal behavior (the latter investigated with Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring) and obtained the most accurate classifications of liars and truth tellers when both the nonverbal and verbal behaviors were taken into account. Similarly, in the present study, both nonverbal and verbal responses of liars and truth tellers were investigated. However, the present study differs from Vrij et al.'s (2000) study in several ways. Perhaps the most important difference was that in the present study apart from adults (undergraduates) children also participated, and this seems the first study in which truthful and deceptive verbal and nonverbal behaviors of both children and adults were investigated and compared. Research examining children's nonverbal behavior relating to deceit is rare, and less than a handful of studies have been published to date (see Vrij, 2002, for a review). Child deception research has mainly focused on questions such as whether children lie, why they lie and when they lie (Frank, 1992). At the same time, examining children's behavior while lying is important for both theoretical and practical reasons, the latter due at least in part to the fact that police officers, social workers, judges and juries are sometimes confronted with the question of whether a child is lying or telling the truth. Theoretical Reasons to Explain Deceptive Nonverbal Behavior Three perspectives (the emotional, cognitive complexity and attempted behavioral control perspectives) seem particularly important for predicting and explaining nonverbal

View PDFchevron_right
Deception Detection through Automatic, Unobtrusive Analysis of Nonverbal Behavior
John Kruse, Jay Nunamaker

IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2005

E very day, hundreds of thousands of people pass through airport security checkpoints, border crossing stations, or other security screening measures. Security professionals must sift through countless interactions and ferret out high-risk individuals who represent a danger to other citizens. During each interaction, the security professional must decide whether the individual is being forthright or deceptive. This task is difficult because of the limits of human vigilance and perception and the small percentage of individuals who actually harbor hostile intent (see the sidebar for more about these challenges). Security personnel can't halt the flow of people and material to extensively gauge the truthfulness of every interaction, so we must do more to help them identify deception and ill intent.

View PDFchevron_right
Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis
Siegfried Sporer

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2007

In many legal proceedings, fact finders scrutinize the demeanor of a defendant or witness, particularly his or her nonverbal behavior, for indicators of deception. This meta-analysis investigated directly observable nonverbal correlates of deception as a function of different moderator variables. Although lay people and professionals alike assume that many nonverbal behaviors are displayed more frequently while lying, of 11 different behaviors observable in the head and body area, only 3 were reliably associated with deception. Nodding, foot and leg movements, and hand movements were negatively related to deception in the overall analyses weighted by sample size. Most people assume that nonverbal behaviors increase while lying; however, these behaviors decreased, whereas others showed no change. There was no evidence that people avoid eye contact while lying, although around the world, gaze aversion is deemed the most important signal of deception. Most effect sizes were found to be heterogeneous. Analyses of moderator variables revealed that many of the observed relationships varied as a function of content, motivation, preparation, sanctioning of the lie, experimental design, and operationalization. Existing theories cannot readily account for the heterogeneity in findings. Thus, practitioners are cautioned against using these indicators in assessing the truthfulness of oral reports.

View PDFchevron_right
Does Nonverbal Information Deteriorate the Accuracy of the Take-the-Best Heuristic for Deception-Detection?
Nisrin Chakir

Does having access to nonverbal information facilitate or rather deteriorate deception detection accuracy? In study1, participants (N = 109) judged statements presented as video versus text on deception. In Study2, participants (N = 88) judging video statements with or without strongly biasing nonverbal behavior (i.e., truth tellers diverting their gaze, liars maintaining gaze). In both studies, we also manipulated the judgment method and replicated that focusing solely on the level of detail in the message outperformed intuitive judgments. The mere presence of nonverbal behavior did not deteriorate performance (Study1), but strongly biasing nonverbal behavior did (Study2). Our findings challenge the lay notion that access to nonverbal behavior could benefit deception detection, and shows it can even harm deception detection.

View PDFchevron_right
Nonverbal cues
Chris N H Street

In T. R. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Deception, 2014

Nonverbal cues to deception refer to unique motor behaviors that occur when lying, but are absent or present to a lesser degree when truth-telling. Nonverbal cues also include vocal behaviors separate from the content of the speech, such as vocal pitch. It is thought these cues are connected to underlying the cognitive and emotional demands of deception and so unintentionally reveal a liar's true beliefs. These cues may also, or instead, reflect the strategies that liars employ in an attempt to appear convincing. Whether unwitting or strategic, these behaviors vary depending on characteristics of the situation and of the individual. Consideration will be given to each of these topics, exploring how the cognitive and emotional elements of deception elicit nonverbal cues to their deceit, the individual and situational differences that modulate the cues to deceit and the benefits of using nonverbal cues.

View PDFchevron_right
Deception in Context: Coding Nonverbal Cues, Situational Variables and Risk of Detection
Lara Frumkin

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2013

There are many situations in which deception may arise and understanding the behaviors associated with it are compounded by various contexts in which it may occur. This paper sets out a coding protocol for identifying cues to deception and reports on three studies, in which deception was studied in different contexts. The contexts involved manipulating risks (i.e., probability) of being detected and reconnaissance, both of which are related to terrorist activities. Two of the studies examined the impact of changing the risks of deception detection, whilst the third investigated increased cognitive demand of duplex deception tasks including reconnaissance and deception. In all three studies, cues to deception were analyzed in relation to observable body movements and subjective impressions given by participants. In general, the results indicate a pattern of hand movement reduction by deceivers, and suggest the notion that raising the risk of detection influences deceivers' behaviors. Participants in the higher risk condition displayed increased negative affect (found in deceivers) and tension (found in both deceivers and truth-tellers) than those in lower risk conditions.

View PDFchevron_right
The Science of Lie Detection by Verbal Cues: What Are the Prospects for Its Practical Applicability?
Svein Magnussen

Frontiers in Psychology, 2022

There is agreement among researchers that no simple verbal cues to deception detectable by humans have been demonstrated. This paper examines the evidence for the most prominent current methods, critically considers the prevailing research strategy, proposes a taxonomy of lie detection methods and concludes that two common types of approach are unlikely to succeed. An approach to lie detection is advocated that derives both from psychological science and common sense: When an interviewee produces a statement that contradicts either a previous statement by the same person or other information the authorities have, it will in many cases be obvious to interviewer and interviewee that at least one of the statements is a lie and at the very least the credibility of the witness is reduced. The literature on Strategic Use of Evidence shows that features of interviews that foster such revelatory and self-trapping situations have been established to be a free account and the introduction of independent information late and gradually into the proceedings, and tactics based on these characteristics constitute the best current general advice for practitioners. If any other approach 1 day challenges this status quo, it is likely to be highly efficient automated systems.

View PDFchevron_right
How People Really Suspect and Discover Lies
Zachary Carr

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2017

Previous research suggested that real-world lies are detected through hard evidence, such as physical evidence or a direct confession, and not via nonverbal clues. However, we argue that discovering a lie is a process, and nonverbal clues are an important source of information that can induce suspicion, which then triggers the search for hard evidence. We replicated an original study suggesting the irrelevance of nonverbal clues, but experimentally manipulated the wording of the critical question as 'discovering' a lie versus 'suspecting' a lie. A second study was conducted that further manipulated the phrasing to ask about 'events' versus 'clues' that led one to detect the lie. Results of both studies showed that those asked about suspecting a lie cited nonverbal behaviors significantly more often than those asked about discovering a lie. Thus, in contrast to previous research, these findings suggest the importance of behavioral clues (e.g. verbal and nonverbal behavior), specifically in the early stage of lie detection. Keywords Deception Á Nonverbal cues Á Lying Á Discovering Á Suspecting Deception research has historically focused on either observing verbal or nonverbal behavioral cues that typically correlate with deception, or measuring a receiver's ability to detect deception from the behaviors of senders. Despite the effort put into this line of S. B. Dietrich and Timothy Shaddock are formerly affiliated with University at Buffalo, but no longer affiliated with an academic institution.

View PDFchevron_right
Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers
R. K. Aune

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1987

propose that deceivers attempt to encode strategically nonverbal cues which indicate nonimmediacy and project a positive image. At the same time, deceivers leak arousal and negative affect via their nonverbal display. This experiment tested these predictions, while examining the influence of relational history on deception cues and the stability of deception cues within deceptive conversations. The nonverbal behavior of 130 strangers, friends, and intimates was measured. Results indicated that deceivers signalled nonimmediacy, arousal, and negative affect, but they did not appear to project a positive image. Deception cues were mediated by relational history and showed considerable temporal variation. Strangers leaked more arousal and negative affect than friends and intimates. Further, deceivers, particularly deceiving friends and intimates, seemed to monitor and control their nonverbal behavior during deception by suppressing arousal and negative affect cues and moderating nonimmediate behavior. Research into behavioral cues to deception has linked several types of behavior with deceptive intent. Recent meta-analyses and summaries provide some of the best evidence on the cues related to deception (De-

View PDFchevron_right

References (325)

  1. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
  2. Albrechtsen, J.S., Meissner, C.A., & Susa, K.J. (2009). Can intuition improve deception detection performance? Journal of Experimen- tal Social Psychology, 45, 1052-1055.
  3. Allwood, C.M., & Granhag, P.A. (1999). Feelings of confidence and the realism of confidence judgments in everyday life. In P. Juslin, & H. Montgomery (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: Neo- Brunswikian and process-tracing approaches (pp. 123-146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  4. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F.J., & Richeson, J.A. (2000). Toward a histol- ogy of social behaviour: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioural stream. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 201-271.
  5. Anderson, C.A., Lepper, M.R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discre- dited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
  6. Anderson, D.E., Ansfield, M.E., & DePaulo, B.M. (1999). Love's best habit: Deception in the context of relationships. In P. Philippot, R.S. Feldman, & E.J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 372-409). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Anderson, D.E., DePaulo, B.M., Ansfield, M.E., Tickle, J.J., & Green, E. (1999). Beliefs about cues to deception: Mindless stereo- types or untapped wisdom? Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 23, 67-89.
  8. Arntzen, F. (1970). Psychologie der Zeugenaussage [Psychology of testimony]. Go ¨ttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
  9. Arntzen, F. (1982). Die Situation der forensischen Aussagenpsycholo- gie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials (pp. 107-120). Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  10. Arntzen, F. (1983). Psychologie der Zeugenaussage: Systematik der Glaubwu¨rdigkeitsmerkmale [Psychology of testimony: A systema- tic approach of credibility assessment]. Mu ¨nchen, Germany: Beck.
  11. Backbier, E., Hoogstraten, J., & Meerum Terwogt-Kouwenhoven, K. (1997). Situational determinants of the acceptability of telling lies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1048-1062.
  12. Bageley, J., & Manelis, L. (1979). Effect of awareness on an indicator of cognitive load. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 591-594.
  13. Baldry, A.C., & Winkel, F.W. (1998). Perceptions of the credibility and eventual value of victim and suspect statements in inter- views. In J. Boros, I. Munnich, & M. Szegedi (Eds.), Psychology and criminal justice: International review of theory and practice (pp. 74-82). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
  14. Baldry, A.C., Winkel, F.W., & Enthoven, D.S. (1997). Paralinguistic and nonverbal triggers of biased credibility assessments of rape victims in Dutch police officers: An experimental study of ''none- videntiary'' bias. In S. Redondo, V. Garrido, J. Perze, & R. Barbaret (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (pp. 163- 174). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
  15. Bar, M., Neta, M., & Linz, H. (2006). Very first impressions. Emotion, 6, 269-278.
  16. Barrett, E.C. (2005). Psychological research and police investigations: Does the research meet the needs? In L. Alison (Ed.), The forensic psychologist's casebook (pp. 47-67). Devon, England: Willan.
  17. Baumeister, R.F. (1998). The self. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680-740). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  18. Bavelas, J.B., & Chovil, N. (2006). Nonverbal and verbal communica- tion: Hand gestures and facial displays as part of language use in face-to-face dialogue. In V. Manusov, & M.L. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 97-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. Bavelas, J.B., Chovil, N., Coates, L., & Roe, L. (1995). Gestures spe- cialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 394-405.
  20. Bavelas, J.B., & Gerwing, J. (2007). Conversational hand gestures and facial displays in face-to-face dialogue. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Fron- tiers of social psychology: Social communication (pp. 283-307). New York: Psychology Press.
  21. Beattie, G.W. (1981). A further investigation of the cognitive interfer- ence hypothesis of gaze patterns during conversation. British Jour- nal of Social Psychology, 20, 243-248.
  22. Bell, K.L., & DePaulo, B.M. (1996). Liking and lying. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 243-266.
  23. Blair, J.P., & Kooi, B. (2004). The gap between training and research in the detection of deception. International Journal of Police Sci- ence and Management, 6, 77-83.
  24. Bok, S. (1989). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Random House.
  25. Bollingmo, G., Wessel, E., Sandvold, Y., Eilertsen, D.E., & Magnussen, S. (2009). The effect of biased and non-biased infor- mation on judgements of witness credibility. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 61-71.
  26. Bond, C.F. (2008). A few can catch a liar, sometimes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1298-1300.
  27. Bond, C.F., & DePaulo, B.M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judge- ments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.
  28. Bond, C.F., & DePaulo, B.M. (2008). Individual differences in jud- ging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477-492.
  29. Bond, C.F., & Fahey, W.E. (1987). False suspicion and the mispercep- tion of deceit. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 41-46.
  30. Bond, C.F., & Uysal, A. (2007). On lie detection ''wizards.'' Law and Human Behavior, 31, 109-115.
  31. Bond, G.D. (2009). Deception detection expertise. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 339-351.
  32. Bond, G.D., Malloy, D.M., Thompson, L.A., Arias, E.A., & Nunn, S. (2004). Post-probe decision making in a prison context. Communi- cation Monographs, 71, 269-285.
  33. Bothwell, R., & Jalil, M. (1992). The credibility of nervous witnesses. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 581-586.
  34. Brant, C. (1993). Communication patterns in Indians: Verbal and non- verbal. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 6, 259-269.
  35. Bull, P. (2009). Detecting deceit: Current issues. In T. Williamson, B. Milne, & S.P. Savage (Eds.), International developments in investigative interviewing (pp. 190-206). Cullompton, England: Willan.
  36. Bull, R., & McAlpine, S. (1998). Facial appearance and criminality. In A. Memon, A. Vrij, & R. Bull (Eds.), Psychology and law: Truth- fulness, accuracy and credibility (pp. 59-76). London: McGraw-Hill.
  37. Buller, D.B., & Aune, R.K. (1988). The effects of vocalics and non- verbal sensitivity on compliance: A speech accommodation theory explanation. Human Communication Research, 14, 301-332.
  38. Buller, D.B., & Burgoon, J.K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242.
  39. Buller, D.B., Comstock, J., Aune, R.K., & Strzyzewski, K.D. (1989). The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers. Journal of Non- verbal Behavior, 13, 155-170.
  40. Buller, D.B., Strzyzewski, K.D., & Comstock, J. (1991). Interpersonal deception: I. Deceivers' reactions to receivers' suspicions and probing. Communication Monographs, 58, 1-24.
  41. Burgess, A.W. (1985). Rape and sexual assault: A research book. London: Garland.
  42. Burgess, A.W., & Homstrom, L.L. (1974). Rape: Victims of crisis. Bowie, MD: Brady.
  43. Burgoon, J.K., Blair, J.P., & Strom, R.E. (2008). Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue availability in deception detection. Human Commu- nication Research, 34, 572-599.
  44. Burgoon, J.K., & Buller, D.B. (1994). Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 155-184.
  45. Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., Floyd, K., & Grandpre, J. (1996). Deceptive realities: Sender, receiver, and observer perspectives in deceptive conversations. Communication Research, 23, 724-748.
  46. Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., White, C.H., Afifi, W., & Buslig, A.L.S. (1999). The role of conversation involvement in deceptive inter- personal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 669-685.
  47. Caso, L., Maricchiolo, F., Bonaiuto, M., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2006). The impact of deception and suspicion on different hand move- ments. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 1-19.
  48. Caso, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & de Leo, G. (2006). Deceptive responses: The impact of verbal and nonverbal countermeasures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 99-111.
  49. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
  50. Colwell, L.H., Miller, H.A., Lyons, P.M., & Miller, R.S. (2006). The training of law enforcement officers in detecting deception: A sur- vey of current practices and suggestions for improving accuracy. Police Quarterly, 9, 275-290.
  51. Dalton, A.L., & Daneman, M. (2006). Social suggestibility to central and peripheral misinformation. Memory, 14, 486-501.
  52. Darley, J.M., & Gross, P.H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33.
  53. Davies, G.M. (1991). Research on children's testimony: Implications for interviewing practice. In C.R. Hollin, & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their victims (pp. 177- 191). New York: Wiley.
  54. Davis, M., & Hadiks, D. (1995). Demeanor and credibility. Semiotica, 106, 5-54.
  55. DePaulo, B.M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203-243.
  56. DePaulo, B.M. (2004). The many faces of lies. In A.G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 303-236). New York: Guilford Press.
  57. DePaulo, B.M., Blank, A.L., Swaim, G.W., & Hairfield, J.G. (1992). Expressiveness and expressive control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 276-285.
  58. DePaulo, B.M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. L., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346-357.
  59. DePaulo, B.M., Epstein, J.A., & LeMay, C.S. (1990). Responses of the socially anxious to the prospect of interpersonal evaluation. Journal of Personality, 58, 623-640.
  60. DePaulo, B.M., & Friedman, H.S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 3-40). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  61. DePaulo, B.M., Kashy, D.A., Kirkendol, S.E., Wyer, M.M., & Epstein, J.A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979-995.
  62. DePaulo, B.M., & Kirkendol, S.E. (1989). The motivational impair- ment effect in the communication of deception. In J.C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 51-70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  63. DePaulo, B.M., Kirkendol, S.E., Tang, J., & O'Brien, T.P. (1988). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of decep- tion: Replications and extensions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 177-202.
  64. DePaulo, B.M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1096-1103.
  65. DePaulo, B.M., LeMay, C.S., & Epstein, J.A. (1991). Effects of importance of success and expectations for success on effective- ness at deceiving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 14-24.
  66. DePaulo, B.M., Lindsay, J.L., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 129, 74-118.
  67. DePaulo, B.M., & Pfeifer, R.L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249-267.
  68. DePaulo, B.M., Rosenthal, R., Eisenstat, R.A., Rogers, P.L., & Finkelstein, S. (1978). Decoding discrepant nonverbal cues. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 313-323.
  69. DePaulo, B.M., Stone, J.I., & Lassiter, G.D. (1985). Telling ingratiat- ing lies: Effects of target sex and target attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1191-1203.
  70. Doherty-Sneddon, G., Bruce, V., Bonner, L., Longbotham, S., & Doyle, C. (2002). Development of gaze aversion as disengagement of visual information. Developmental Psychology, 38, 438-445.
  71. Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Phelps, F.G. (2005). Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory and Cognition, 33, 727-733.
  72. Dumas, R., & Teste ´, B. (2006). The influence of criminal facial stereo- types on juridic judgments. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 237-244.
  73. Ekman, P. (1997). Deception, lying, and demeanor. In D.F. Halpern, & A.E. Voiskounsky (Eds.), States of mind: Amer- ican and post-Soviet perspectives on contemporary issues in psy- chology (pp. 93-105). New York: Oxford University Press.
  74. Ekman, P. (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, pol- itics and marriage. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1985).
  75. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88-106.
  76. Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.
  77. Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (2006). From flawed self-assessment to blatant whoppers: The utility of voluntary and involuntary beha- vior in detecting deception. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 24, 673-686.
  78. Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M.G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263-266.
  79. Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M.G. (2008). Scoring and report- ing: A response to Bond (2008). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1315-1317.
  80. Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., Friesen, W.V., & Scherer, K. (1991). Face, voice, and body in detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Beha- vior, 15, 125-135.
  81. Elaad, E. (2003). Effects of feedback on the overestimated capacity to detect lies and the underestimated ability to tell lies. Applied Cog- nitive Psychology, 17, 349-363.
  82. Feeley, T.H., & Young, M.J. (2000). The effects of cognitive capacity on beliefs about deceptive communication. Communication Quarterly, 48, 101-119.
  83. Feldman, S.S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Sexual betrayal among late adolescents: Perspectives of the perpetrator and the aggrieved. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 235-258.
  84. Fiedler, K., & Walka, I. (1993). Training lie detectors to use nonverbal cues instead of global heuristics. Human Communication Research, 20, 199-223.
  85. Fisher, R.P., Brennan, K.H., & McCauley, M.R. (2002). The cogni- tive interview method to enhance eyewitness recall. In M.L. Eisen, J.A. Quas, & G.S. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 265-286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  86. Fisher, R.P., Vrij, A., & Leins, D.A. (in press). Inconsistency as a pre- dictor of memory inaccuracy and lying. In B.S. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment New York, NY: Springer.
  87. Ford, E.B. (2006). Lie detection: Historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29, 159-177.
  88. Fowler, K.A., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Patrick, C.J. (2009). Detecting psy- chopathy from thin slices of behavior. Psychological Assessment, 21, 68-78.
  89. Frank, M.G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit gener- alizes across different of high-stake lies. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 72, 1429-1439.
  90. Frank, M.G., & Feeley, T.H. (2003). To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training. Journal of Applied Communica- tion Research, 31, 58-75.
  91. Frank, M.G., Yarbrough, J.D., & Ekman, P. (2006). Investigative interviewing and the detection of deception. In T. Williamson (Ed.), Investigative interviewing: Rights, research and regulation (pp. 229-255). Cullompton, England: Willan.
  92. Freedman, N. (1972). The analysis of movement behavior during the clinical interview. In A.R. Siegman, & B. Pope (Eds.), Studies in dyadic communication (pp. 153-175). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
  93. Ganis, G., Kosslyn, S.M., Stose, S., Thompson, W.L., & Yurgelun- Todd, D.A. (2003). Neural correlates of different types of decep- tion: An fMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 830-836.
  94. Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2004). Police officers' credibil- ity judgements: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 254-275.
  95. Geiselman, R.E., Callot, R. (1990). Reverse versus forward recall of script-based texts. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 141-144.
  96. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Sim- ple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
  97. Gilbert, D.T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychol- ogist, 46, 107-119.
  98. Gilbert, J.A.E., & Fisher, R.P. (2006). The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 723-739.
  99. Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V.H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332-346.
  100. Glenberg, A.M., Schroeder, J.L., & Robertson, D.A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26, 651-658.
  101. The Global Deception Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60-74.
  102. Goodman, G.S., Rudy, L., Bottoms, B., & Aman, C. (1990). Chil- dren's concerns and memory: Issues of ecological validity in the study of children's eyewitness testimony. In R. Fivush, & J. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 249-284). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  103. Granhag, P.A. (2010). On the psycho-legal study of true and false intentions: Dangerous waters and some stepping stones. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 37-43.
  104. Granhag, P.A., Andersson, L.O., Stro ¨mwall, L.A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals' beliefs about decep- tion. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 103-119.
  105. Granhag, P.A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind- reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 189-200.
  106. Granhag, P.A., & Knieps, M. (in press). Episodic future thought: Illu- minating the trademarks of true and false intent. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
  107. Granhag, P.A., & Stro ¨mwall, L.A. (1999). Repeated interrogations: Stretching the deception detection paradigm. Expert Evidence: The International Journal of Behavioural Sciences in Legal Contexts, 7, 163-174.
  108. Granhag, P.A., & Stro ¨mwall, L.A. (2000a). ''Let's go over this again...'': Effects of repeated interrogations on deception detection performance. In A. Czerederecka, T. Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska, & J. Wojcikiewicz (Eds.), Forensic psychology and law: Traditional questions and new ideas (pp. 191-196). Krako ´w, Poland: Institute of Forensic Research.
  109. Granhag, P.A., & Stro ¨mwall, L.A. (2000b). Deception detection: Examining the consistency heuristic. In C.M. Breur, M.M. Kommer, J.F. Nijboer, & J.M. Reintjes (Eds.), New trends in criminal investigation and evidence (Vol. 2, pp. 309-321). Antwerpen, Belgium: Intresentia.
  110. Granhag, P.A., & Stro ¨mwall, L.A. (2001). Deception detection: Inter- rogators' and observers' decoding of consecutive statements. The Journal of Psychology, 135, 603-620.
  111. Granhag, P.A., & Stro ¨mwall, L.A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psy- chology, 16, 243-257.
  112. Granhag, P.A., & Stro ¨mwall, L.A. (2004). The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  113. Granhag, P.A., Stro ¨mwall, L.A., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Granting asy- lum or not? Migration board personnel's beliefs about deception. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31, 29-50.
  114. Granhag, P.A., Stro ¨mwall, L.A., & Hartwig, M. (2007). The SUE technique: The way to interview to detect deception. Forensic Update, 88, 25-29.
  115. Granhag, P.A., Stro ¨mwall, L.A., & Jonsson, A.C. (2003). Partners in crime: How liars in collusion betray themselves. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 848-868.
  116. Granhag, P.A., & Vrij, A. (2010). Interviewing to detect deception. In P.A. Granhag (Ed.), Forensic psychology in context: Nordic and international approaches (pp. 75-93). Cullompton, England: Willan.
  117. Greely, H., & Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medi- cine, 33, 377-431.
  118. Greuel, L. (1992). Police officers' beliefs about cues associated with deception in rape cases. In F. Lo ¨sel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 234- 239). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
  119. Gudjonsson, G.H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and con- fessions. Chichester, England: Wiley.
  120. Hale, J.L., & Stiff, J.B. (1990). Nonverbal primacy in veracity judgments. Communication Reports, 3, 75-83.
  121. Hare, R.D. (2006). Psychopathy: A clinical and forensic overview. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 29, 709-724.
  122. Hartwig, M., & Bond, C.F. (2010). Why do lie-catchers fail? A Bruns- wikian lens model of human lie judgments. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  123. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., & Stro ¨mwall, L. (2007). Guilty and inno- cent suspects' strategies during interrogations. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 13, 213-227.
  124. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Stro ¨mwall, L., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the strategic self- regulation of innocent and guilty suspects [Special issue]. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 10-16.
  125. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Stro ¨mwall, L., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interrogations: When train- ing to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603-619.
  126. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Stro ¨mwall, L., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detect- ing deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 469-484.
  127. Henig, R.M. (2006, February 5). Looking for the lie. The New York Times. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/02/05/magazine/05lying.html
  128. Hirsch, A.R., & Wolf, C.J. (2001). Practical methods for detecting mendacity: A case study. Journal of the American Academy of Psy- chiatry and the Law, 29, 438-444.
  129. Hocking, J.E., & Leathers, D.G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective. Communication Mono- graphs, 47, 119-131.
  130. Horvath, F., Jayne, B., & Buckley, J. (1994). Differentiation of truth- ful and deceptive criminal suspects in behavioral analysis inter- views. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 793-807.
  131. Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J.P., & Jayne, B.C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions. (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
  132. Joffe, R., & Yuille, J.C. (1992, May). Criteria-based content analysis: An experimental investigation. Paper presented at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advanced Study Institute on the Child Witness in Context: Cognitive, Social and Legal Perspectives, Lucca, Italy.
  133. Johnson, R.R. (2006a). Confounding influences on police detection of suspiciousness. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 435-442.
  134. Johnson, R.R. (2006b). Race and police reliance on suspicious nonver- bal cues. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 277-290.
  135. Kahana, M.J. (1996). Associate retrieval processes in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 24, 103-109.
  136. Kalbfleisch, P.J. (1992). Deceit, distrust and the social milieu: Appli- cation of deception research in a troubled world. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 308-334.
  137. Kassin, S.M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does inno- cence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215-228.
  138. Kassin, S.M. (2008a). Confession evidence: Commonsense myths and misconceptions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1309-1322.
  139. Kassin, S.M. (2008b). The psychology of confessions. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 4, 193-217.
  140. Kassin, S.M., Appleby, S.C., & Torkildson-Perillo, J. (2010). Inter- viewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 39-56.
  141. Kassin, S.M., & Fong, C.T. (1999). ''I'm innocent!'': Effects of train- ing on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499-516.
  142. Kassin, S.M., Goldstein, C.J., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral con- firmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187-203.
  143. Kassin, S.M., & Gudjonsson, G.H. (2004). The psychology of confes- sions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33-67.
  144. Kassin, S.M., Meissner, C.A., & Norwick, R.J. (2005). ''I'd know a false confession if I saw one'': A comparative study of college stu- dents and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 211-227.
  145. Kassin, S.M., & Norwick, R.J. (2004). Why people waive their Mir- anda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211-221.
  146. Kaufmann, G., Drevland, G.C., Wessel, E., Overskeid, G., & Magnussen, S. (2003). The importance of being earnest: Displayed emotions and witness credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 21-34.
  147. Kendon, A. (1994). Do gestures communicate? A review. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27, 175-200.
  148. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  149. Kleinke, C L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psy- chological Bulletin, 100, 78-100.
  150. Kleinmuntz, B., & Szucko, J. J. (1984). Lie detection in ancient and modern times: A call for contemporary scientific study. American Psychologist, 39, 766-776.
  151. Ko ¨hnken, G. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eye- witness statements. Does it work? Social Behaviour, 2, 1-17.
  152. Ko ¨hnken, G. (2002). A German perspective on children's testimony. In H.L. Westcott, G.M. Davies, & R.H.C. Bull (Eds.), Children's testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 233-244). Chichester, England: Wiley.
  153. Ko ¨hnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and the ''detection of the truth.'' In P.A. Granhag, & L.A. Stro ¨mwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 41-63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  154. Kowalski, R.M., Walker, S., Wilkinson, R., Queen, A., & Sharpe, B. (2003). Lying, cheating, complaining, and other aversive interpersonal behaviors: A narrative examination of the darker side of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 471-490.
  155. Krauss, R.M. (1981). Impression formation, impression management, and nonverbal behaviors. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 323-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  156. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: Two systematic observational studies. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 547-552.
  157. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal commu- nication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 71-89.
  158. Landry, K., & Brigham, J.C. (1992). The effect of training in criteria- based content analysis on the ability to detect deception in adults. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 663-675.
  159. Lane, J.D., & DePaulo, B.M. (1999). Completing Coyne's cycle: Dys- phorics' ability to detect deception. Journal of Research in Person- ality, 33, 311-329.
  160. Leal, S., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2010). Detecting true and false opinions: The Devil's Advocate approach as a lie detection aid. Acta Psychologica, 134, 323-329.
  161. Leary, M.R., & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulle- tin, 107, 34-47.
  162. Leins, D., Fisher, R.P., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Mann, S. (in press). Using sketch-drawing to induce inconsistency: An active approach to detecting deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology.
  163. Leo, R.A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266-303.
  164. Lerner, M.J. (1980). The belief in a just world. New York: Plenum Press.
  165. Levine, T.R., Asada, K.J.K., & Park, H.S. (2006). The lying chicken and the gaze avoidant egg: Eye contact, deception and causal order. Southern Journal of Communication, 4, 401-411.
  166. Levine, T.R., Feeley, T.H., McCornack, S.A., Hughes, M., & Harms, C.M. (2005). Testing the effects of nonverbal behavior training on accuracy in deception detection with the inclusion of a bogus training control group. Western Journal of Communica- tion, 69, 203-217.
  167. Levine, T.R., & McCornack, S.A. (1992). Linking love and lies: A for- mal test of the McCornack and Parks model of deception detection. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 143-154.
  168. Levine, T.R., & McCornack, S.A. (1996a). A critical analysis of the behavioral adaptation explanation of the probing effect. Human Communication Research, 22, 575-588.
  169. Levine, T.R., & McCornack, S.A. (1996b). Can behavioral adaptation explain the probing effect? Human Communication Research, 22, 604-613.
  170. Levine, T.R., & McCornack, S.A. (2001). Behavioural adaptation, confidence, and heuristic-based explanations of the probing effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 471-502.
  171. Levine, T.R., Park, H.S., & McCornack, S.A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the ''veracity effect.'' Com- munication Monographs, 66, 125-144.
  172. Lindholm, T. (2008). Who can judge the accuracy of eyewitness statements? A comparison of professionals and lay-persons.
  173. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1301-1314.
  174. Littmann, E., & Szewczyk, H. (1983). Zu einigen Kriterien und Ergeb- nissen forensisch-psychologischer Glaubwu ¨rdigkeitsbegutachtung von sexuell mißbrauchten Kindern und Jugendlichen [Criteria to be examined in forensic-psychological credibility assessment in child sexual abuse cases].
  175. Forensia, 4, 55-72.
  176. Liu, M, Granhag, P.A., Landstro ¨m, S., Roos af Hjelmsa ¨ter, E., Stro ¨mwall, L.A., & Vrij, A. (2010). ''Can you remember what was in your pocket when you were stung by a bee?''-Eliciting cues to deception by asking the unanticipated. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 31-36.
  177. Loftus, E.F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning and Memory, 12, 361-366.
  178. Loftus, E.F., & Palmer, J.C. (1974). Reconstructions of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and mem- ory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589.
  179. Lord, C.G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 37, 2098-2109.
  180. Macrae, C.N., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2001). Social cognition: Cate- gorical person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 239-256.
  181. Malone, B.E., & DePaulo, B.M. (2001). Measuring sensitivity to deception. In J.A. Hall, & F.J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensi- tivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 103-124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  182. Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2002). Suspects, lies and videotape: An analysis of authentic high-stakes liars. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 365-376.
  183. Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police offi- cers' ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137-149.
  184. Masip, J., Sporer, S., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 99-122.
  185. Matarazzo, J.D., Wiens, A.N., Jackson, R.H., & Manaugh, T.S. (1970). Interviewee speech behavior under conditions of endogenously-present and exogenously-induced motivational states. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 17-24.
  186. McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychologi- cal Review, 92, 350-371.
  187. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  188. Meissner, C.A., & Kassin, S.M. (2002). ''He's guilty!'': Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Beha- vior, 26, 469-480.
  189. Millar, M.G., & Millar, K.U. (1998). The effects of suspicion on the recall of cues used to make veracity judgments. Communication Reports, 11, 57-64.
  190. Miller, G.R., & Stiff, J.B. (1993). Deceptive communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  191. Moston, S.J. (1992). Truth or lies. Policing, 8, 26-39.
  192. Moston, S.J., & Engelberg, T. (1993). Police questioning techniques in tape recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing and Society, 6, 61-75.
  193. Moston, S.J., Stephenson, G.M., & Williamson, T.M. (1992). The effects of case characteristics on suspect behaviour during police questioning. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 23-39.
  194. National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  195. Noller, P. (1985). Video primacy-A further look. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 28-47.
  196. Ofshe, R.J., & Leo, R.A. (1997). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 979-1112.
  197. O'Sullivan, M. (2007). Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Are lie detection experts myths or rarities? A response to ''On Lie Detection 'Wizards''' by Bond and Uysal. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 117-123.
  198. O'Sullivan, M. (2008). Home runs and humbugs: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008). Psychological Bulletin, 134, 493-497.
  199. O'Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detec- tion.
  200. In P.A. Granhag & L.A. Stro ¨mwall (Eds.), Deception detec- tion in forensic contexts (pp. 269-286). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  201. O'Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1988). The effect of comparisons on detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 203-216.
  202. O'Sullivan, M., Frank, M.G., Hurley, C.M., & Tiwana, J. (in press). Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. Law and Human Behavior.
  203. Park, H.S., Levine, T.R., McCornack, S.A., Morrisson, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144-157.
  204. Patterson, M.L. (1995). Invited article: A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 3-29.
  205. Patterson, M.L. (2006). The evolution of theories of interactive behavior. In V. Manusov, & M.L. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of non- verbal communication (pp. 21-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  206. Pickel, K.L. (2004). When a lie becomes the truth: The effects of self- generated misinformation on eyewitness memory. Memory, 12, 14-26.
  207. Porter, S., England, L., Juodis, M., ten Brinke, L., & Wilson, K. (2008). Is the face the window to the soul?: Investigation of the accuracy of intuitive judgments of the trustworthiness of human faces. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40, 171-177.
  208. Porter, S., Gustaw, C., & ten Brinke, L. (2010). Dangerous decisions: The impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability. Psychology Crime & Law, 16, 477-491.
  209. Porter, S., Juodis, M., ten Brinke, L., Klein, R., & Wilson, K. (2010). Evaluation of a brief deception detection training program. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 21, 66-76.
  210. Porter, S., & Peace, K. (2007). The scars of memory: A prospective, longitudinal investigation of the consistency of traumatic and pos- itive emotional memories in adulthood. Psychological Science, 18, 435-441.
  211. Porter, S., Spencer, L., & Birt, A. (2003). Blinded by emotion? Effect of emotionality of a scene on susceptibility to false memories. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 35, 165-175.
  212. Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2008). Reading between the lies: Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychological Science, 19, 508-514.
  213. Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2009). Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 119-134.
  214. Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2010). Truth about lies: What works in detecting high-stakes deception? [Special issue]. Legal and Crim- inological Psychology, 15, 57-76.
  215. Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). I'm sorry I did it . . . but he started it: A comparison of the official and self-reported homicide descriptions of psychopath and non-psychopaths. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 91-107.
  216. Porter, S., Woodworth, M., & Birt, A.R. (2000). Truth, lies, and video- tape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643-658.
  217. Porter, S., Woodworth, M., McCabe, S., & Peace, K.A. (2007). ''Gen- ius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration'' . . . or is it? An inves- tigation of the impact of motivation and feedback on deception detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 297-310.
  218. Porter, S., & Yuille, J.C. (1995). Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1, 319-331.
  219. Porter, S., & Yuille, J.C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investi- gation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443-459.
  220. Porter, S., Yuille, J.C., & Lehman, D.R. (1999). The nature of real, implanted and fabricated memories for emotional childhood events: Implications for the recovered memory debate. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 517-537.
  221. Quas, J.A., Davis, E.L., Goodman, G.S., & Myers, J.E.B. (2007). Repeated questions, deception, and children's true and false reports of body touch. Child Maltreatment, 12, 60-67.
  222. R. v. Lifchus, 3 S.C.R. 320 (1997).
  223. Reinhard, M.A., & Sporer, S.L. (2008). Verbal and nonverbal beha- viour as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task invol- vement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 477-488.
  224. Reinhard, M.A., Sporer, S.L., & Marksteiner, T. (2009). Situational familiarity and the use of nonverbal and verbal information in judgments of veracity. Manuscript under review.
  225. Riggio, R.E. (1994). Epilogue: Where are we going, and how do we get there? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 514-518.
  226. Riggio, R.E., Tucker, J., & Throckmorton, B. (1988). Social skills and deception ability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 568-577.
  227. Robinson, W.P. (1994). Reactions to falsifications in public and inter- personal contexts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 497-513.
  228. Roney, J.R., Hanson, K.N., Durante, K.M., & Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men's faces: Women's mate attractiveness judgments track men's testosterone and interest in infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 273, 2169-2175.
  229. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Dis- tortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174-221). New York: Academic Press.
  230. Rotenberg, K.J., & Sullivan, C. (2003). Children's use of gaze and limb movement cues to infer deception. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 175-187.
  231. Ruby, C.L., & Brigham, J.C. (1997). The usefulness of the criteria- based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 705-737.
  232. Schacter, D.L., & Addis, R.D. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 392, 773-786.
  233. Schlenker, B.R., & Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.
  234. Schubert, S. (2006). A look tells all. Scientific American Mind. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://www.scientificamerican. com/article.cfm?id¼a-look-tells-all
  235. Schweitzer, M.E., Brodt, S.E., & Croson, R.T.A. (2002). Seeing and believing: Visual access and the strategic use of deception. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 258-275.
  236. Schweitzer, M.E., Hershey, J.C., & Bradlow, E.T. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 1-9.
  237. Seiter, J.S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of decep- tion as a function of perceivers' culture, deceiver's intention, and deceiver-deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communica- tion, 66, 158-180.
  238. Spence, S.A. (2008). Playing devil's advocate: The case against fMRI lie detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 11-26.
  239. Spence, S.A., Farrow, T.F.D., Herford, A.E., Wilkinson, I.D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P.W.R. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 12, 2849-2853.
  240. Sporer, S.L. (2004). Reality monitoring and detection of deception. In P.A. Granhag, & L.A. Stro ¨mwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 64-102). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  241. Sporer, S.L., Penrod, S.D., Read, J.D., & Cutler, B.L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
  242. Sporer, S.L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of decep- tion: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-446.
  243. Sporer, S.L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indica- tors of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34.
  244. Stiff, J.B., Corman, S., Krizek, B., & Snider, E. (1994). Individual dif- ferences and changes in nonverbal behavior: Unmasking the changing faces of deception. Communication Research, 21, 555-581.
  245. Stiff, J.B., Kim, H.J., & Ramesh, C.N. (1992). Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception. Communication Research, 19, 326-345.
  246. Stiff, J.B., & Miller, G.R. (1986). ''Come to think of it...'': Interroga- tive probes, deceptive communication, and deception detection. Human Communication Research, 12, 339-357.
  247. Stiff, J.B., Miller, G.R., Sleight, C., Mongeau, P., Garlick, R., & Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judg- ments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 555-564.
  248. Stix, G. (2008, August 13). Can fMRI really tell if you are lying? Sci- entific American. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from http://www. scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id¼new-lie-detector Stro ¨mwall, L.A., & Granhag, P.A. (2005). Children's repeated lies and truths: Effects on adults' judgments and reality monitoring scores. Psychiatry, Psychology, & Law, 12, 345-356.
  249. Stro ¨mwall, L.A., & Granhag, P.A. (2007). Detecting deceit in pairs of children. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1285-1304.
  250. Stro ¨mwall, L.A., Granhag, P.A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners' beliefs about deception. In P.A. Granhag, & L.A. Stro ¨mwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 229-250). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  251. Stro ¨mwall, L.A., Granhag, P.A., & Jonsson, A.C. (2003). Deception among pairs: ''Let's say we had lunch together and hope they will swallow it.'' Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 109-124.
  252. Stro ¨mwall, L.A, Granhag, P.A., & Landstro ¨m, S. (2007). Children's prepared and unprepared lies: Can adults see through their strate- gies? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 457-471.
  253. Taylor, R., & Hick, R.F. (2007). Believed cues to deception: Judg- ments in self-generated serious and trivial situations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 321-332.
  254. Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 288-338). New York: Academic Press.
  255. Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285-293.
  256. Todorov, A. (2008). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness: An exten- sion of systems for recognition of emotions signaling approach/ avoidance behaviors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 208-224.
  257. Toris, C., & DePaulo, B.M. (1984). Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1063-1073.
  258. Trankell, A. (1972). Reliability of evidence. Stockholm, Sweden: Beckmans.
  259. Trovillo, P.V. (1939). A history of lie detection. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 29, 848-881.
  260. Turner, R.E., Edgley, C., & Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11, 69-89.
  261. Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der Glaubhaftigkeit von Aussagen [Evaluation of the credibility of statements].
  262. In U. Undeutsch (Ed.), Handbuch der Psychologie Vol. 11: Forensische Psychologie [Hand- book of Psychology Vol. 11: Forensic psychology] (pp. 26-181). Go ¨ttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
  263. Undeutsch, U. (1982). Statement reality analysis. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials (pp. 27-56). Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  264. Undeutsch, U. (1984). Courtroom evaluation of eyewitness testimony. International Review of Applied Psychology, 33, 51-67.
  265. Undeutsch, U. (1989). The development of statement reality analysis. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 101-121). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  266. Van Rossum, W. (1998). Verschijnen voor de rechter: Hoe het hoort en het ritueel van Turkse verdachten in de rechtszaal [Appearing before the court: How to behave and the ritual of Turkish defen- dants in the courtroom].
  267. Vrij, A. (1993). Credibility judgments of detectives: The impact of nonverbal behavior, social skills and physical characteristics on impression formation. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 601-611.
  268. Vrij, A. (1994). The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 117-137.
  269. Vrij, A. (1995). Behavioral correlates of deception in a simulated police interview. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 129, 15-29.
  270. Vrij, A. (2000). Telling and detecting lies as a function of raising the stakes. In C.M. Breur, M.M. Kommer, J.F. Nijboer, & J.M. Reintjes (Eds.), New trends in criminal investigation and evi- dence (Vol. 2, pp. 699-709). Antwerpen, Belgium: Intersentia.
  271. Vrij, A. (2004). Invited article: Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 159-181.
  272. Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3-41.
  273. Vrij, A. (2006). Challenging interviewees during interviews: The potential effects on lie detection. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 193-206.
  274. Vrij, A. (2007). Deception: A social lubricant and a selfish act. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Frontiers of social psychology: Social communi- cation (pp. 309-342). New York: Psychology Press.
  275. Vrij, A. (2008a). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.
  276. Vrij, A. (2008b). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection: A plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1323-1336.
  277. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006). Police officers', social workers', teachers' and the general public's beliefs about decep- tion in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 297-312.
  278. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2002). Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law and Human Behaviour, 26, 261-283.
  279. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004a). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behavior in children and adults. Human Communication Research, 30, 8-41.
  280. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004b). Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and reality monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 113-126.
  281. Vrij, A., Dragt, A.W., & Koppelaar, L. (1992). Interviews with ethnic interviewees: Nonverbal communication errors in impression formation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 199-209.
  282. Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). Stereotypical verbal and non- verbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 899-909.
  283. Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K.P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239-263.
  284. Vrij, A., Evans, H., Akehurst, L., & Mann, S. (2004). Rapid judge- ments in assessing verbal and nonverbal cues: Their potential for deception researchers and lie detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 283-296.
  285. Vrij, A., & Fischer, A. (1995). The expression of emotions in simu- lated rape interviews. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 10, 64-67.
  286. Vrij, A., & Fischer, A. (1997). The role of displays of emotions and ethnicity in judgements of rape victims. International Review of Victimology, 4, 255-265.
  287. Vrij, A., & Graham, S. (1997). Individual differences between liars and the ability to detect lies. Expert Evidence, 5, 144-148.
  288. Vrij, A., & Granhag, P.A. (2007). Interviewing to detect deception. In S.A. Christianson (Ed.), Offenders' memories of violent crimes (pp. 279-304). Chichester, England: Wiley.
  289. Vrij, A., Granhag, P.A., & Mann, S. (in press). Invited article: Good liars. Journal of Psychiatry and Law.
  290. Vrij, A., Granhag, P.A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (in press). Lying about flying: The first experiment to detect false intent. Psychology, Crime & Law.
  291. Vrij, A., Harden, F., Terry, J., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). The influence of personal characteristics, stakes and lie complexity on the accuracy and confidence to detect deceit. In R. Roesch, R.R. Corrado, & R.J. Dempster (Eds.), Psychology in the courts: International advances in knowledge (pp. 289-304). London: Routledge.
  292. Vrij, A., Kneller, W., & Mann, S. (2000). The effect of informing liars about criteria-based content analysis on their ability to deceive CBCA-raters. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 57-70.
  293. Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P.A., Mann, S., Fisher, R.P., Hillman, J., et al. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 159-166.
  294. Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., & Granhag, P.A. (in press). A comparison between lying about intentions and past activities: Verbal cues and detection accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
  295. Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Warmelink, L., Granhag, P.A., & Fisher, R.P. (2010). Drawings as an innovative and successful lie detection tool. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 587-594.
  296. Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001a). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187-203.
  297. Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001b). Who killed my relative? Police officers' ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 7, 119-132.
  298. Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2004). Detecting deception: The benefit of look- ing at a combination of behavioral, auditory and speech content related cues in a systematic manner. Group Decision and Negotia- tion, 13, 61-79.
  299. Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2006a). An empirical test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 329-345.
  300. Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2006b). Information-gathering vs accusatory interview style: Individual differences in respondents' experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 589-599.
  301. Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Leal, S., Milne, B., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253-265.
  302. Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 499-518.
  303. Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. (2010). ''Look into my eyes'': Can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 327-348.
  304. Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Granhag, P.A. (2010). Getting into the minds of pairs of liars and truth tellers: An examination of their stra- tegies [Special issue]. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 17-22.
  305. Vrij, A., & Semin, G.R. (1996). Lie experts' beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 65-80.
  306. Vrij, A., & Winkel, F.W. (1991). Cultural patterns in Dutch and Sur- inam nonverbal behavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 169-184.
  307. Vrij, A., & Winkel, F.W. (1992). Crosscultural police-citizen interac- tions: The influence of race, beliefs and nonverbal communication on impression formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1546-1559.
  308. Vrij, A., & Winkel, F.W. (1994). Perceptual distortions in cross- cultural interrogations: The impact of skin color, accent, speech style and spoken fluency on impression formation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 284-296.
  309. Vrij, A., Winkel, F.W., & Koppelaar, L. (1991). Interactie tussen politiefunctionarissen en allochtone burgers: twee studies naar de frequentie en het effect van aan-en wegkijken op de impressiefor- matie [Cross-cultural police-citizen interactions: Two experiments examining the impact of gaze behavior on impression formation].
  310. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 46, 8-20.
  311. Waenke, M., & Bless, H. (2000). The effects of subjective ease of retrie- val on attitudinal judgements: The moderating role of processing motivation. In H. Bless, & J.P. Forgas (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behaviour (pp. 143-161). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  312. Walczyk, J.J., Roper, K.S., Seemann, E., & Humphrey, A.M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755-774.
  313. Walczyk, J.J., Schwartz, J.P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M., & Zha, P. (2005). Lying person-to-person about live events: A cogni- tive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58, 141-170.
  314. Wang, G., Chen, H., & Atabakhsh, H. (2004). Criminal identity decep- tion and deception detection in law enforcement. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 111-127.
  315. Watanabe, H. (2005). Semantic and episodic predictions of memory for plans. Japanese Psychological Research, 47, 40-45.
  316. Wessel, E., Drevland, G., Eilertsen, D.E., & Magnussen, S. (2006). Credibility of the emotional witness: A comparison of ratings by laypersons and court judges. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 221-230.
  317. White, C.H., & Burgoon, J.K. (2001). Adaptation and communicative design: Patterns of interaction in truthful and deceptive conversa- tions. Human Communication Research, 27, 9-37.
  318. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592-598.
  319. Winkel, F.W., & Koppelaar, L. (1991). Rape victims' style of self- presentation and secondary victimization by the environment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 29-40.
  320. Winkel, F.W., & Vrij, A. (1990). Interaction and impression formation in a cross-cultural dyad: Frequency and meaning of culturally determined gaze behaviour in a police interview setting. Social Behaviour, 5, 335-350.
  321. Wolpe, P.R., Foster, K.R., & Langleben, D.D. (2005). Emerging neu- rotechnologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils. The Ameri- can Journal of Bioethics, 5, 39-49.
  322. Yuille, J.C. (1988). The systematic assessment of children's testi- mony. Canadian Psychology, 29, 247-262.
  323. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-57). New York: Academic Press.
  324. Zuckerman, M., Driver, R., & Koestner, R. (1982). Discrepancy as a cue to actual and perceived deception. Journal of Nonverbal Beha- vior, 7, 95-100.
  325. Zuckerman, M., Speigel, N.H., DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 171-187.

Related papers

Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception
Bella DePaulo

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1982

This study tested the hypothesis that judges who suspect deception would be less influenced by controllable channels (facial expresions) relative to "leaky" channels (voice and body) than judges who do not suspect deception. The Nonverbal Discrepancy Test, comprised of video (face or body) cues paired with audio cues, was administered to subjects with the information that the person shown in the test never lied, sometimes lied, or very often lied; in a fourth condition (control) there was no mention of deception. In some cases, the video and audio components of the discrepancy test depicted the same affect while in other cases they depicted different affects. Subjects who expected more deception were relatively less influenced by the facial component of the affectively discrepant video-audio pairings. These subjects were also less accurate at decoding affectively consistent videoaudio pairings, especially those involving facial cues. Finally, subjects who expected more deception became less accurate decoders of consistent video-audio pairings during the second half of the test but learned to recognize video-audio discrepancies better. The results suggest that suspicion of deception led subjects to discount facial cues. Results for the control group indicated that even in the absence of explicit information, discrepant messages create a suspicion of deception. Traditionally, research on lie detection has been identified with the question of whether the polygraph and other mechanical Preparation of this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.

View PDFchevron_right
Are You Lying to Me?: Using Nonverbal Cues to Detect Deception
Rebecca Dyer

2007

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................3 Introduction.......................................................... ... ... The present study was designed to investigate the relationship between response latency, speech ... Participants rated each response ...

View PDFchevron_right
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception
Bella DePaulo

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1981

View PDFchevron_right
Research on Non-verbal Signs of Lies and Deceit: A Blind Alley
Svein Magnussen

Frontiers in Psychology, 2020

View PDFchevron_right
Detecting Deception from Emotional and Unemotional Cues
Peter Bull

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2008

Encoders were video recorded giving either truthful or deceptive descriptions of video footage designed to generate either emotional or unemotional responses. Decoders were asked to indicate the truthfulness of each item, what cues they used in making their judgements, and then to complete both the Micro Expression Training Tool (METT) and Subtle Expression Training Tool (SETT). Although overall performance on the deception detection task was no better than chance, performance for emotional lie detection was significantly above chance, while that for unemotional lie detection was significantly below chance. Emotional lie detection accuracy was also significantly positively correlated with reported use of facial expressions and with performance on the SETT, but not on the METT. The study highlights the importance of taking the type of lie into account when assessing skill in deception detection. Keywords Deception detection Á Emotion Á SETT Á METT Deception, whether through omission or direct falsification, is a fundamental part of human social interaction (DePaulo et al. 2003). Deception may refer to anything from trivial, socalled ''white lies'', to situations in which the consequences of detected deception are grave-especially those involving the law. Although many lies are uncovered due to physical evidence or to the presence of third-party information (Park et al. 2002), sometimes this may be insufficient or even non-existent. In such contexts, lie detectors (such as law enforcement agents) may be forced to rely on other cues, such as nonverbal behavior, as indicators of a statement's truth or falsehood.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Nonverbal Communication
  • Medicine
  • Lie detection
  • Non Verbal Communication

    • Cited by

    Interviewers' perceptions of impression management in employment interviews
    Julia Levashina

    Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2014

    Purpose -Applicants often use impression management (IM) in employment interviews, and such tactics can considerably influence interviewers' evaluations of their performance. Yet, little research has examined interviewers' perceptions of such behaviors. This paper aims to examine if interviewers' perceptions of various IM behaviors converge with applicants' selfreports and the impact of interviewers' IM perceptions on interview outcomes.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Back to the Future: Asking About Mental Images to Discriminate Between True and False Intentions
    Melanie Knieps

    The Journal of Psychology, 2013

    In this study we asked participants to mentally travel back to the future. The participants were asked to remember and report on a mental image of the near future. We predicted that participants who, during an interview, told the truth about their intentions would differ in their descriptions of their mental images compared to participants who lied about their future intentions. We found partial support for this overarching assumption. More specifically, we found that more truth tellers than liars reported to have had a mental image activated during the planning of their intentions. We also showed that liars (vs. truth tellers) found the question on the mental image more difficult to answer. However, they did not differ in other aspects (number of words and amount of details reported, and subjective perception of the mental image activated). The suspects were interviewed twice, with an interval of one week, and in line with our prediction we found that liars' (vs. truth tellers') reports were less consistent over time. This study departures from episodic future thought and aims to contribute to the development of a scientifically based interview protocol for discriminating between true and false intentions.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Small Cells of Suspects: Eliciting Cues to Deception by Strategic Interviewing
    Jenny Rangmar

    Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2014

    Investigators often have to deal with small groups of suspects, and this is true both for criminal cases and for suspected terrorist cases. There is, however, very little research examining the effectiveness of different interview techniques when facing cells of suspects. In order to remedy this shortcoming, we examined the extent to which three interviewing techniques elicited cues to deception from small groups of suspects. In one technique, the evidence was disclosed early in the interview (early evidence); in another, the evidence was disclosed late using the Strategic use of evidence technique (SUE-basic); and in the third technique, the evidence was disclosed late and with an increased strength and precision (SUE-incremental). We used a mock-theft scenario with 126 participants randomly allocated to one of six conditions: guilty or innocent suspects interrogated with one of the three disclosure tactics. The SUE-incremental proved to be the most effective technique, resulting in significant differences between guilty and innocent suspects for all three cues examined: statementevidence inconsistency, within-statement inconsistency, and within-group inconsistency. Based on the findings, we argue that the SUE technique is effective also for eliciting cues to deception when used for small groups of suspects.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Counter-Interrogation Strategies among Small Cells of Suspects
    Jenny Rangmar

    Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2013

    View PDFchevron_right
    Sidetracked by emotion: Observers’ ability to discriminate genuine and fabricated sexual assault allegations
    Kristine Peace

    Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2012

    Purpose. Assessing the credibility of reports of sexual victimization -often in the absence of corroboration -presents a significant challenge for legal decision makers. This study examined the accuracy of observers in discriminating genuine and fabricated sexual assault allegations. Further, we examined whether individual differences and cue utilization strategies influenced deception detection accuracy.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved